Title: Harper v. James

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

246 Ind. 131 (1965)
203 N.E.2d 531
HARPER
v.
JAMES.
No. 30,710.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed January 11, 1965.
Buena Chaney and Mann, Mann, Chaney & Johnson, of Terre Haute, for appellant.
Thomas & Thomas, of Brazil, and Tennis & Cochran, of Sullivan, for appellee.
ACHOR, J.
The action is before this court on petition to transfer. [See: Harper v. James (1963 Appellate Court) 191 N.E.2d 504.]
*132 This is an action for personal injury arising out of an automobile collision. Judgment was for the defendant-appellee.
Appellant, in Cause 1-B of her motion for new trial, assigns as error giving of the trial court's Instruction No. 10. The instruction is as follows:
First, appellant equates "conjecture" with "think." Thus, with this interpretation appellant claims that the instruction invades the province of the jury. However, the use of the word "conjecture" is not erroneously used in the instruction. The word is defined:
The use of the word conjecture is consistent with numerous decisions of this court which have held that a verdict cannot be based on mere guess, conjecture, surmise, possibility or speculation. Newsom v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company *133 (1962), Ind. App. 186 N.E.2d 699; Kelly v. Davidson et al. (1959), 129 Ind. App. 384, 154 N.E.2d 888; Smith, Executrix v. Strock, Executor (1945), 115 Ind. App. 518, 60 N.E.2d 157. The failure to use a particular word in an instruction is not error if the word used conveys the proper meaning. For example, see: Lincoln National Bank & Trust Co. v. Parker (1941), 110 Ind. App. 1, 34 N.E.2d 190; Brooks v. Muncie Traction Co. (1911), 176 Ind. 298, 95 N.E. 1006.
However, this instruction was erroneous because it imposed a burden upon the plaintiff-appellant of proving the absence of contributory negligence.
In King's Indiana Billiard Co. v. Winters (1952), 123 Ind. App. 110, 125-126, 106 N.E.2d 713, the problem was discussed as follows:
*134 A plaintiff is not required to allege or prove freedom from contributory negligence. Acts 1959, ch. 63, § 1, p. 130, being § 2-1025, Burns' 1946 Repl. (1964 Supp.); Lincoln Operating Co. v. Gillis (1953), 232 Ind. 551, 114 N.E.2d 873; Michigan Cent. R.R. Co. v. Spindler, Admr. (1937), 211 Ind. 94, 5 N.E.2d 632. Instruction No. 10 which imposed this burden upon appellant was erroneous.[2]
Appellee contends that Instructions Nos. 4, 19, and 20 given by the court correctly state the law as to the burden of proof of contributory negligence and that these instructions cured the error, if any, in Instruction No. 10. However, the error cannot be rendered harmless by the mere giving of other instructions which state the law correctly.
As stated in Fowler v. Wallace (1892), 131 Ind. 347, 355-356, 31 N.E. 53:
Judgment reversed.
Arterburn, C.J., Landis & Myers, JJ., concur.
Jackson, J., dissents, with opinion.
JACKSON, J.
This matter is here on petition to transfer. It came to the Appellate Court on appeal from a judgment of the Sullivan Circuit Court denying plaintiff-appellant relief in an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision.
Appellant, in her petition to transfer, relies on the alleged erroneous mandatory instruction, being defendant's instruction No. 10 given by the court and appearing at page one of petition to transfer, page one of the majority opinion, and in appellant's brief page 164. Appellant objected to the giving of said instruction in writing as appears from page two of her petition as follows:
"(Tr. p. 451-452; Appellant's Brief, p. 178)
`Tr. p. 531, and Appellant's Brief, p. 224)"
The phrase "sole proximate cause" it is contended placed an undue burden on plaintiff requiring a showing she was free from contributory negligence.
It would seem that standing alone Instruction No. 10 is erroneous, but the Appellate Court disposed of the question, saying it was not reversible error because, "`[a] party cannot complain of an error in an instruction when he has tendered an instruction containing the same or a similar error.' Garatoni v. Teegarden (1959), 129 Ind. App. 500, 513, 154 N.E.2d 379." [Cited in 191 N.E.2d 506.]
In appellant's tendered instructions, which were given by the Court Nos. 3 and 6, appellant-plaintiff used the same language he now complains of.
The statement in the majority opinion "[h]owever this instruction was erroneous because it imposed a burden upon the plaintiff-appellant of proving the absence of contributory negligence" is dicta, not sustained by a reading of the instruction. If for the purpose of this argument we were to ignore the case of Garatoni v. Teegarden, supra, reversible error would still not be *137 present in the case at bar for the reason that the instruction complained of (No. 10) was not mandatory.
A mandatory instruction is one which unequivocably charges the jury that if they find a certain set of facts exists they must render a verdict accordingly therewith. The Court in the case of Vance v. Wells (1959), 129 Ind. App. 659, 159 N.E.2d 586, said:
In Stull v. Davidson et al. (1955), 125 Ind. App. 565, 579, 127 N.E.2d 130, the Court said:
The Court has said,
The majority opinion in relying on King's Indiana Billiard Co. v. Winters (1952), 123 Ind. App. 110, 106 N.E.2d 713, does not take into consideration that therein it was the defendant who was appellant while in the case at bar the appellant was the plaintiff in the original action.
Where such wording as sole proximate cause may be prejudicial error as to a defendant the language therein could in no wise be construed as prejudicial to the plaintiff. Even after consideration of that question by this court in the above cited case, (King's Indiana Billiard Co. v. Winters, supra,) the court did not find reversible error.
For the reasons stated herein transfer should be denied.
NOTE.  Reported in 203 N.E.2d 531.
[1]  It is asserted that the giving of appellee's Instruction No. 10, although erroneous, did not constitute reversible error because the appellant, herself, used the phrase "sole proximate cause" in instructions tendered by her, and thus invited the error. It is true that appellant correctly used the phrase in other instructions. However, the proper use of the phrase in appellant's instructions cannot be said to invite or justify its erroneous use in another instruction given by the court, as is the circumstance in this case.
[2]  It is asserted in the dissenting opinion that discussion regarding the giving of Instruction No. 10 is mere dicta, since the instruction "was not mandatory." However, reversible error in the giving of an instruction is not dependent upon its being mandatory. Further, notwithstanding contentions to the contrary, appellee's Instruction No. 10 contains all the characteristics of a mandatory instruction. Vance v. Wells (1959), 129 Ind. App. 659, 159 N.E.2d 586 cited by appellee.