Case Title: Taylor v. Fitzpatrick

Citation: 132 N.E.2d 919, 235 Ind. 238

Docket Number: 29,404

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1956-03-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
235 Ind. 238 (1956)
132 N.E.2d 919
TAYLOR
v.
FITZPATRICK.
No. 29,404.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed March 20, 1956.
*240 Fenton, Steers, Beasley & Klee, of Indianapolis, and Otis E. Gulley, of Danville, for appellant.
Aribert L. Young, Erle A. Kightlinger, both of Indianapolis, J. Gordon Gibbs, of Danville, and Armstrong, Gause, Hudson & Kightlinger, of Indianapolis (of counsel), for appellee.
BOBBITT, C.J.
This is an action for damages arising out of a collision between an automobile driven by appellant and two automobiles owned by appellee which were parked, unattended, at the curb in front of his home at 644 North Oakland Street, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Defendant's-appellant's motion for new trial contains 26 specifications or grounds therefor. Specifications 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 24 and 25 pertain to the same question and present the same issue, viz: Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury?
The amended complaint charges appellant with the following acts of negligence:
See: Taylor v. Fitzpatrick (1955), 126 N.E.2d 248, for Appellate Court opinion.
An examination of the record to see if there is any evidence of probative value or any reasonable inference which might be drawn therefrom which, if believed by the jury, would sustain the verdict, discloses the following:
First: Appellant moved for a directed verdict at the close of appellee's evidence. The motion was overruled and appellant proceeded with the introduction of evidence on his own behalf, thereby waiving any right to have such motion considered. Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Revlett (1946), 224 Ind. 313, 65 N.E.2d 731; Drinkwatter v. Eikenberry (1946), 224 Ind. 84, 64 N.E.2d 399.
Second: Appellant asserts that the court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence.
We have no quarrel with appellant's assertion that no presumption arises from the mere fact that a collision occurred. This is true except where the doctrine of *243 res ipsa loquitur applies. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Reyher, Admx. (1940), 216 Ind. 545, 24 N.E.2d 284; Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. v. Roach (1922), 192 Ind. 384, 135 N.E. 334.
Appellant contends that:
Appellee was not limited to evidence of what appellant saw or heard at the time of the collision. Hubble, Admr. v. Brown (1949), 227 Ind. 202, 210, 84 N.E.2d 891; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glassman (1947), 224 Ind. 641, 645, 70 N.E.2d 24.
Physical facts and circumstances are often more convincing than words. As stated by the Appellate Court in Magazine v. Shull (1845), 116 Ind. App. 79, at p. 85, 60 N.E.2d 611:
If there is a rational connection between facts established by direct evidence and the ultimate fact inferred therefrom, such inference is not disqualified simply because it is disputed by the testimony of a witness.
In the case at bar, the evidence is replete with direct evidence concerning the result of the collision and its impact on the cars involved and, in our opinion, the jury might reasonably have inferred from such evidence that the speed of appellant's car at the time and place of the collision was greater than the exercise of ordinary care would permit under the circumstances. H.E. McGonigal, Inc. v. Etherington (1948), 118 Ind. App. 622, 79 N.E.2d 777.
This was sufficient evidence to take the issue of negligent rate of speed to the jury, and the court did not err in overruling appellant's motion for a directed verdict.
Third: Appellant asserts that there was "an entire lack of evidence to support any of the allegations of negligence" and that the trial court should have sustained *245 his respective motions to withdraw the various charges of negligence from the jury.
In our opinion there was sufficient evidence from which the jury might reasonably have found that appellant negligently failed to have his automobile under control; that he failed to turn it to avoid a collision with appellee's parked automobiles; that he failed to keep a proper lookout ahead for another automobile; and that he failed to drive in the proper lane for south bound traffic at the place of the collision.
The evidence is undisputed that there were no tire or skid marks made by appellant's automobile. There was no eye witness to the collision except the defendant-appellant himself. He contends that the absence of skid marks by his automobile was wholly negative and of no probative value on the question as to whether or not appellant applied his brakes. With this statement we cannot agree. The weight of negative evidence, as well as positive evidence, must be submitted to the jury. The fact that there were no skid marks made by appellant's car, when considered with the undisputed testimony as to the condition of the parked cars after the collision, is a circumstance from which the jury might reasonably have inferred that appellant did not apply his brakes.
In Board, etc. v. Garrigus (1905), 164 Ind. 589, at p. 609, 73 N.E. 82, this court said:
These were questions to be decided by the jury and they were properly submitted for its consideration.
Fourth: Specification 23 of the motion for a new trial assigns as ground therefor the trial court's refusal to give appellant's tendered instructions numbered 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Any question as to numbers 1 and 5 are waived, and the remaining ones, except number 9, present the same issue, viz: (1) Was appellant, when he was allegedly confronted with a sudden emergency in the person of a small boy suddenly appearing in the path of his automobile, held to the same accuracy of judgment as would be required of him if he had had time for deliberation? (2) Is he liable if he had exercised such care as an ordinarily prudent person would have exercised when confronted with a like emergency? Gamble v. Lewis (1949), 227 Ind. 455, 464, 85 N.E.2d 629; Hedgecock v. Orlosky (1942), 220 Ind. 390, 396, 44 N.E.2d 93; City of Michigan City v. Werner (1917), 186 Ind. 149, 162, 114 N.E. 636.
The question arises here because of the unsupported testimony of appellant, that in order to avoid striking a small boy, whom he first observed "when about a car's length from me", he swerved his automobile and thereby collided with the parked cars of appellee.
Instructions numbered 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are mandatory in form, i.e., they direct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant if it finds from the evidence that certain facts exist.
From the record in this case it is essential that appellant, in order to invoke the doctrine of sudden peril, must show by the evidence the existence of the following facts:
One or more of the facts which must be present in order to apply the doctrine of sudden peril in this case are not recited in appellant's tendered instructions numbered 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12.
Since these tendered instructions are mandatory and none of them recite all of the facts and conditions essential to a verdict for the appellant, the trial court properly refused them.
*248 Sixth: The substance of appellant's tendered instructions numbered 9 and 13 is fully covered by the court's instructions numbered 9 and 12. Hence, the court's refusal to give such tendered instructions was not reversible error. Craig, Extx. v. Citizens Trust Company (1940), 217 Ind. 434, 442, 26 N.E.2d 1006; Gamble v. Lewis (1949), supra, 227 Ind. 455, 465, 85 N.E.2d 629; Hedrick v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 381, 387, 98 N.E.2d 906.
Seventh: Specifications 9 to 22, inclusive, of the motion for a new trial are not discussed in the argument section of appellant's brief as required by Rule 2-17 (e) and (f) of this Court, hence they are waived.
Appellant has failed to establish reversible error. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury, and it was not contrary to law, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Landis, Arterburn, Achor and Emmert, JJ., concur.
NOTE.  Reported in 132 N.E.2d 919.