The Canon City record with which is consolidated the Canon City cannon., 1917-12-13
ARGUMENT MADE TO SET
ASIDE VER0ICT IN DAMAGE
CASE AGAINST D. & R. 6.

Argument was heard by Judge
Cooper in the district court. Satur-
day on motion filed by the defend
ant to set -aside the findings of the
jury in the case of Miss Florence Nc
Zenzie -aSainst the Denver n Rio
orande Railroad company on the
ground that the special verdict nulli-
fed the general verdict. which gave
the defendant damages in the sum OF
$3.50.
The motion assigns four reasons
why the case should be set aside.
which are as follows:
First. that the proximate cause Of
the collision was tho negligence of the
driver Of the automobile. Edward
John. in failing to stop the car and
avoid the collision.
Second. that whatever negligence
the jury found against the defendant
by the general verdict is In law made
the remote cause of the collision by
the direct effect of the special verdict.
Third. that regardless Of any negli-
gence which the jury found against
the defendant as the basis Of the gen.
eral verdict. such negligence is. by
the special verdict. declared to be not
actionabIe for the reason that the In
dependent negligence Of the driver OF
the car. Edward John. intervened to
make ii possible for the defendants
negligence to operate to the plaintiffs
injury. and. therefore. such interven-
ing negligence of an independent third
responsible party ie established by tho
special finding as the sole legal prox-
innate cause of the collision. since.
without the drivers negligence. no
collision could have occurred.
Fourth. that the Plaintiff as a ma'-
ter OF law. was guilty Of personal neg
ligence which contributed directly to
the collision In TINT she wholly failed
to caution. warn or request the said
driver TO stop at or near the said
point. twenty-three feet from the rail-
road crossing. or question at any place
between the said point and the point
Of collision. or at all.
The formal statement Of the motion
as flied with the district clerk says:
by reason OF the foregoing the de-
fendant shows TO the court that the
said special finding Of fact and special
verdict is Inconsistent with the gen.
eral verdict under the express -provss-
Iona of the Code of Colorado: the
said special verdict destroys the value
Of the general verdict and 1t is the
duty ofthe court TO give judgment ac-
moves the court to render final judg-
ment in favor the defendant and
against the palintiff upon the special
verdict and finding of fact by the jury
Notwithstanding the general verdict
The special verdict alluded to In the
notion related to the statement Of the
jury that the automobile in which the
plaintn was riding at the time of the
accident in which she sustained the
injuries upon which suit was based
was twenty-three feet from the rail-
road crossing when the occupants OF
the car first saw the approaching
train. This special verdict was rem
dered In response to the following In
struction from the court: THE court
instructs the Jury that. in addition to
its general verdict. II shall answer the
F@rf IL
evidence and that the foreman OF the
jury shall sign the reply: How far
were the front wheels OF the automo-
bile form the railroad tracks where
the collision occurred when 1t frat be-
came possible for the driver OF the
car. Edward John. to zee the train ap-
preaching