Title: Collett v. Estate of Schnell
Citation: 194 Kan. 75, 397 P.2d 402
Docket Number: 43,837
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 1964

194 Kan. 75 (1964)
397 P.2d 402
MARJORIE COLLETT, Appellee,
v.
The Estate of Conrad J. Schnell, Deceased, WILLIAM SCHNELL, Executor, Appellant.
No. 43,837

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed December 12, 1964.
Archie T. MacDonald, of McPherson, argued the cause, and John E. Wheeler, of Marion, appeared with him on the briefs for the appellant.
David W. Wheeler and Edwin G. Westerhaus, both of Marion, argued the cause, and D.W. Wheeler, of Marion, appeared with them on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HATCHER, C.:
This appeal stems from an action to recover damages for personal injuries as the result of a collision between two automobiles.
As the determining issue involves the trial court's post-verdict directions to the jury, the facts may be highly summarized.
On the 4th day of January, 1962, the claimant, Marjorie Collett, was driving an automobile in a westerly direction on a Marion County, Kansas highway about one-half mile west of the city of Ramona, Kansas. At the place mentioned the claimant's car collided with an automobile being driven in an easterly direction by Conrad J. Schnell. The claimant was seriously injured. Schnell died four days later. His will was probated and the claimant filed a petition for allowance of demand for her injuries suffered in the collision in the probate court against the executor of the estate of Schnell. The *76 petition for allowance of demand, in due course, reached the district court where the case was tried to a jury. At a pretrial conference it was determined that the only controverted facts were the location of both vehicles just prior to and at the time of impact in relation to the center of the roadway and the extent of claimant's injuries. We ignore the trial proceedings and consider next the conduct of the jury. The jury, after deliberating, returned to the courtroom and announced that it had reached a verdict. The trial court read the verdict and the answers to special questions in silence.
The following proceedings then took place:
It was then disclosed that the jury had returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $21,125.00 and answered special questions, only three of which are material here, as follows:
"ANSWER: Yes.
"ANSWER: 14 inches to the left of center.
"ANSWER: Contributed."
There followed an off the record discussion of the court's procedure in returning the jury to the jury room for further consideration *77 but it does not appear that any specific objection was made at that time. The jury returned in due course with the same general verdict and had answered question 3, 4 and 5 as follows:
"ANSWER: No visible marks proved to jury.
"ANSWER: Don't know.
The jury was dismissed and the defendant then filed its objections to the court's procedure in handling the jury. The motion was later argued to the trial court and overruled. Judgment was rendered on the general verdict and amended answers to the special questions. A motion for a new trial was also overruled and the defendant has appealed.
The appellant presents its chief claim of error as follows:
We must agree with appellant's contention. It is error for the trial court to indicate to the jury the need for having the answers to special questions consistent with the general verdict. It is the sole duty of the jury to find the facts according to the evidence and to answer the special questions, truthfully without reference to the effect on the general verdict. Any effort on the part of the trial court to influence the jury in this regard destroys the entire purpose of special questions.
We have in this case a good illustration of the unfortunate results that follow such a practice. When the jury first returned it stated that there were tire marks laid down by appellee's car just before the collision and that the tracks were fourteen inches over the left center of the road. After the trial court stated that it found that the "verdict and and answers to special questions are inconsistent" *78 and instructed the jury to retire and reconsider the instructions and its decision, the jury returned with findings contrary to what it had originally found. When the jury returned the second time it stated that "no visible marks were proved to jury," and that it did not know where such tracks were from the center of the road. It would be difficult to reach any conclusion other than that the trial court influenced the jury in its second set of answers to the special questions. This the trial court may not do. We definitely disposed of this question in Thornton v. Franse, 135 Kan. 782, 12 P.2d 728, where it is stated at page 787 of the opinion:
Cases cited by appellee to the effect that the court may require the jury to complete indefinite and incomplete answers (Snyder v. Eriksen, 109 Kan. 314, 198 Pac. 1080) and that the jury may be returned where one of the jurors disagrees with the answer to a special question after being polled (Farmer v. Central Mut. Ins. Co., 145 Kan. 951, 67 P.2d 511) or disagrees with the verdict (Morgan v. Bell, 41 Kan. 345, 21 Pac. 255) have no application to the question under consideration.
The appellee contends that the appellant waived his objections to the trial court's action in sending the jury out for further deliberation, by failing to make any objections prior to the dismissal of the jury. In support of her contention the appellee cites numerous cases which adhere to the rule that in the absence of any objection to the verdict or special questions until after the jury is discharged, a litigant is deemed to have waived any objections he might have thereto. (Watkins Co. v. Hanson, 185 Kan. 758, 347 *79 P.2d 447; Kitchen v. Lasley Co., 186 Kan. 24, 348 P.2d 588; Banbery v. Lewis, 173 Kan. 59, 244 P.2d 202.)
We have no intention of deviating from the above rule. However, we do not believe that the rule has any application to the facts and circumstances under consideration. The appellant is not directly complaining of the jury's answer to the special questions. He is satisfied with the first set of answers, the only answers that carried any validity. The appellant is objecting to the conduct of the trial court when it informed the jury that it found their verdict and answers to the special questions to be inconsistent and instructed the jury to return to the jury room, "reread your verdict, reread your answers to special questions, and reread the instructions," and the abortive results which followed.
We have concluded the directions of the trial court were clearly erroneous. This court adheres to the rule that where the instructions or directions of the trial court are in themselves erroneous, an appellant is not estopped of complaining of them as error by not having objected at the time they were given.
In Miller v. Kruggel, 165 Kan. 435, 195 P.2d 597, we state at page 439 of the opinion:
It should be noted that the appellant was not informed as to the findings and verdict, nor given an opportunity to object to the trial court's directions before the jury was returned to the jury room. The appellant did by its objection before the verdict was approved, and in its motion for a new trial, call the trial court's attention to its error and give it an opportunity to correct it.
The appellant further contends:
We cannot direct a judgment on the special findings in this case because the trial court has not approved the jury's first answers to the special questions, and from the state of the record this court has no assurance that it would. A similar situation was before this court in Walker v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co., 157 Kan. 170, 139 P.2d 157, where it is stated:
If the trial court is dissatisfied with the jury's answers to special questions, its only recourse is to grant a new trial. It cannot substitute its answers to the special questions for that of the jury nor require the jury to return particular answers. If that were permitted to be done it would amount to forcing the parties to a trial by the court denying them a trial by jury.
The judgment is reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.