Title: Morlan v. Smith

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

191 Kan. 218 (1963)
380 P.2d 312
L.D. MORLAN and GENEVA MORLAN, his wife, Appellants,
v.
ROBERT J. SMITH, Appellee.
No. 43,099

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 6, 1963.
Gerald L. Goodell, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Lester M. Goodell, Marlin S. Casey, Raymond Briman, Murray F. Hardesty, Wayne T. Stratton and Robert E. Edmonds, all of Topeka, and Steadman Ball, J.W. Lowry, William E. Stillings and Robert D. Caplinger, all of Atchison, were with him on the brief for the appellants.
Terence D. O'Keefe, of Atchison, argued the cause, and Maurice P. O'Keefe, Sr., Dolan McKelvy and Maurice P. O'Keefe, Jr., all of Atchison, were with him on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, J.:
This was an action by parents to recover for the alleged wrongful death of their six-year-old son as the result of being struck by an automobile driven by defendant.
The jury returned a verdict for defendant and made special findings. Judgment for defendant was entered thereon, and plaintiffs have appealed from the order overruling their motion for new trial, and specify a number of alleged trial errors.
The facts are not in dispute.
At about eleven o'clock a.m. on Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 1960, defendant, a resident of Atchison, was driving east on East 34th Street in the city of Topeka. His wife and baby were in the front seat beside him. They were on their way to spend the day with relatives who lived in the near vicinity. Plaintiffs lived on the south side of East 34th Street. The area was completely residential. Their six-year-old son, together with several other children, was *219 playing in a neighbor's yard on the north side of the street about six or eight feet north of the curb. The street was paved and the day was dry and clear. A car was parked on the north side of the street, heading west, near where the children were playing. Another car was parked on the south side of the street, heading east, approximately in front of plaintiffs' residence which was located diagonally southeast from where the children were playing. As defendant drove in an easterly direction down the street he noticed the children playing and scuffling in the yard on the north side of the street. He did not sound his horn or give any other warning of his approach. As the children were playing plaintiffs' son apparently was hit in the stomach. He sort of doubled over and started to run for home. In doing so he "darted out" from behind the automobile which was parked on the north side of the street and was hit by the left front end of defendant's car. Defendant did not see the boy and did not know what had happened until he heard the "thump." He was driving between fifteen and twenty miles per hour. The boy died immediately. He was forty-six inches tall and the height of the car parked on the north side of the street was approximately sixty-two inches. Shortly after the accident police officers arrived on the scene to make an investigation.
The jury was given twenty-five instructions. Among them were the following:
"No. 9.
"No. 17.
"No. 18.
Over plaintiffs' objection, the jury also was given this instruction:
"No. 11.
Six special questions were submitted. They, and the answers thereto, are:
"Answer: Yes.
"Answer: Yes.
"Answer: 16 to 20 miles per hour.
"Answer: No.
"Answer:
"Answer:"
Among the points urged by plaintiffs for a reversal is that while one of the police officers was testifying he stated that "no arrests were made." It appears, however, that the statement was stricken and the jury admonished to disregard it.
Another point made by plaintiffs is this: Based upon their investigation, the police officers made out an "accident report." Over plaintiffs' objection, a copy of it was introduced in evidence. It *221 contained the statement "no improper driving indicated." In his closing argument to the jury counsel for the defendant referred to this report and laid much stress on the mentioned statement as being proof that defendant was in no way negligent.
We think plaintiffs' contention as to the matter is well taken and that the admission of the report containing the statement in question was prejudicial error. In the first place, the report was hearsay, and, secondly  the statement, "no improper driving indicated," was a pure conclusion on the part of the investigating officer dealing with the very question of negligence which the jury was impanelled to try. In fact, that was the only issue in the case. In this connection, reference is made to the case of Derrick v. Blazers, 355 Mich. 176, 93 NW 2d 909, reported at 69 A.L.R.2d 1143, and the annotation commencing at page 1148, same volume.
Another point strenuously urged by plaintiffs is the giving, over their objection, of instruction No. 11, above quoted, dealing with the question of the statutory duties of a pedestrian when crossing a street  which, in effect, told the jury that a six-year-old child is held to the same degree of care as an adult. Plaintiffs concede that in instruction No. 9, above quoted, the jury was told that a six-year-old child cannot be held guilty of negligence which will bar recovery by his parents provided, of course, it is found that death resulted from defendant's negligence  but contend that instruction No. 11 was so contradictory to and irreconcilable with instruction No. 9 that the giving of it resulted only in confusing the jury and constituted prejudicial error.
We think this point also is well taken. Under the facts of this case, instruction No. 11 clearly was improper and uncalled for and should not have been given. The rule of law with respect to the negligence of an adult and that of a child of tender years is quite different (Weber v. Wilson, 187 Kan. 214, 220, 356 P.2d 659). And neither are we able to say that instructions Nos. 9, 17 and 18, all above quoted, removed its prejudicial effect.
Other matters argued by the parties require no discussion. For the reasons stated, it follows that the judgment is reversed with directions to grant a new trial.
PRICE, J., dissenting:
In my opinion the decision in this case is an illustration of the familiar saying that "hard cases make bad law."
I will concede  for the sake of argument  that the statement *222 in the accident report  "no improper driving indicated"  should not have been admitted, and that instruction No. 11 should not have been given  but, under the undisputed facts of this case, I am unable to say that either of the "errors" could have prejudicially affected the result. Harmless error is one thing  prejudicial error is another  and for the latter only should reversal be ordered. (Home Ins. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Rly. Co., 189 Kan. 316, 319, 320, 369 P.2d 338, and cases cited.) Under the provisions of G.S. 1949, 60-3317, this court is directed to disregard all mere technical errors and irregularities which do not affirmatively appear to have prejudicially affected the substantial rights of the party complaining where it appears, upon the whole record, that substantial justice has been done by the judgment or order of the trial court.
No one contends this this six-year-old boy was guilty of contributory negligence so as to bar recovery by his parents. There was only one issue in the case, and it was whether defendant was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the boy's death. Plaintiff's evidence contained nothing to establish that he was. All of the evidence in the case was such that the jury returned the only verdict that in all honesty it could return. Any possible "damage" that might have resulted from the giving of instruction No. 11 most certainly was cured by instructions Nos. 17 and 18, both of which are set out in full in the opinion written for the court. In fact, at the hearing on the motion for a new trial counsel for plaintiffs commented that notwithstanding the court had, for all practical purposes, "instructed a verdict for the plaintiffs," the jury "apparently found this man free from negligence." In denying the motion the trial judge stated:
I agree with the foregoing comment. The situation presented here is one of frequent occurrence to all drivers on city streets. The result was tragic, of course, but the law requires more than that to impose liability. I would affirm the judgment.
PARKER, C.J., and SCHROEDER, J., concur in the foregoing dissent.