Title: Mann v. Good

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

202 Kan. 631 (1969)
451 P.2d 233
C.M. MANN and VERA MANN, His Wife, Appellees,
v.
ROBERT L. GOOD, a Minor, Appellant, (and ROBERTA J. HIXON, Defendant).
No. 45,241

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 8, 1969.
Forrest E. Short, of Fort Scott, argued the cause and Joel B. Short, of Fort Scott, was with him on the brief for appellant.
Walter B. Patterson, of Fort Scott, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FROMME, J.:
This is a wrongful death action brought by the parents of Carol Mann, deceased. Carol died as a result of an automobile collision in Bourbon county. She was a guest passenger in an automobile driven by Robert L. Good.
The case was tried to the court without a jury. The court made extensive findings of fact and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendant Robert L. Good in the sum of $11,460.11. The claim against the defendant Roberta J. Hixon was dismissed at the close of the evidence and no question is raised concerning the *632 dismissal. The defendant-appellant, Robert L. Good, will be referred to in this opinion as the defendant. He has appealed from the judgment.
The plaintiffs filed notice of cross-appeal from a post trial order setting the amount of a supersedeas bond and staying further proceedings to collect the judgment, but in their brief they make no contention and present no argument with respect to such ruling. We therefore consider the cross-appeal as abandoned. (Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638, 640, 298 P.2d 316.)
The eight points stated as error by defendant present one basic question to be decided in this appeal. Was the evidence sufficient to support the findings of the trial court and the conclusion that defendant's conduct amounted to gross and wanton negligence?
The facts which gave rise to this claim for relief were set forth in the trial court's memorandum decision as follows:
The factors present in the evidence upon which the trial court concluded defendant's conduct was gross and wanton were set forth in the court's decision as follows:
Defendant contends there was no substantial evidence that he was driving sixty to seventy miles per hour or that Carol Mann asked him to slow down. The defendant says the court should have disregarded the testimony of the dead girl's father who related a conversation with defendant following the death of his daughter. In this conversation the defendant made the admissions to the father. These admissions were relevant evidence. Defendant further contends evidence of four vehicles traveling this county road did not justify a finding that traffic was fairly heavy. He also argues three private driveways in the vicinity of the collision scene do not justify the finding that there were a number of private driveways serving homes in the vicinity. These arguments are directed to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.
When the trial court's findings are attacked because of insufficiency of the evidence, the power of a reviewing court begins and ends with the determination of whether there is any substantial evidence *634 to support the findings. This court does not pass on the credibility of witnesses or the truth of their testimony. It is the function of the trier of facts, not of the reviewing court, to determine which witness and what testimony it should believe. (See Finnell v. Patrons Co-operative Bank, 193 Kan. 354, 394 P.2d 116 and cases cited therein.)
Substantial evidence means evidence possessing something of substance and relevant consequence, and which furnishes substantial basis of fact from which the issues can reasonably be resolved. (See Newcomb v. Brettle, 196 Kan. 560, 413 P.2d 116 and cases cited therein.)
We have examined the record and there is relevant evidence possessing substance which furnishes a basis for the facts set forth in the findings of the trial court.
Do the facts found by the trial court amount to gross and wanton negligence?
In Saunders v. Shaver, 190 Kan. 699, 378 P.2d 70, this court said:
This definition of gross and wanton negligence was further refined in Muhn v. Schell, 196 Kan. 713, 413 P.2d 997, where it was held:
The trial court was cognizant of what is necessary to constitute gross and wanton acts. It determined from the evidence defendant was acquainted with the dangers present in traveling this particular stretch of road. The defendant approached the brow of the hill driving his 1950 Ford, equipped with four barrel carburetor, eight cylinder motor and special transmission, at an excessive rate of speed. He ignored his passenger's request to slow down. Under these and other circumstances shown by the record the trial court *635 was justified in concluding defendant realized the imminence of danger and proceeded in the face of protests from his passenger with reckless disregard for the probable consequences of his acts. We cannot say as a matter of law these findings do not support the conclusion of gross and wanton negligence.
The judgment for plaintiffs against the defendant, Robert L. Good, is affirmed.