Title: Milliken v. Smith
Citation: 405 S.W.2d 475
Docket Number: N/A
State: Tennessee
Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court
Date: July 15, 1966

405 S.W.2d 475 (1966) Rupert L. MILLIKEN, Respondent, v. W. C. SMITH, Jr., Petitioner. Mrs. Sallie G. SMITH, Petitioner, v. Rupert L. MILLIKEN, Respondent. W. C. SMITH, Jr., Petitioner, v. Rupert L. MILLIKEN, Respondent, Supreme Court of Tennessee. July 15, 1966. Taylor &amp; Schlater, Nashville, for petitioners. Jack Green and Thomas O.H. Smith, Jr., Nashville, for respondent. CRESON, Justice. The petitioners, Mrs. Sallie G. Smith and Mr. W.C. Smith, Jr., have assigned for error the action of the Court of Appeals for the Middle Section of Tennessee, affirming verdicts and judgments rendered in the Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee. The facts of this case pertinent to the primary question raised, are as follows: One morning in January, 1963, while Old Hickory Boulevard was covered with ice and snow, respondent Milliken drove out of his driveway onto that highway, turning left on his way to work. At this same time, petitioner, Mr. Smith, and his wife, Mrs. Smith, were traveling in a car along the aforementioned highway, in the same direction as Mr. Milliken was turning, or had turned. The two automobiles collided, Smith's automobile running into the rear of Milliken's. Mr. Smith was operating his automobile. Milliken sued Smith for damages to himself and his automobile, alleging common law negligence. Smith sued Milliken for damage to his automobile and expenses, and loss of services of his wife, who was injured. Mrs. Smith sued Milliken for damages for personal injury. The jury returned a verdict for Milliken against Mr. Smith for $1,500.00; Smith's suit against Milliken was dismissed on a finding of the jury against Smith. Mrs. Smith was awarded a verdict against Milliken for $1,200.00. Judgments were entered in accordance with the verdicts of the jury. Mrs. Smith filed a motion for a new trial in her case as plaintiff against Milliken, asserting that the verdicts were fatally inconsistent. Mr. Smith filed a motion for a new trial, both in his case as plaintiff against Milliken as defendant and in his case as defendant in the case of Milliken as plaintiff. These two motions were identical to that filed on behalf of Mrs. Smith. All such motions were overruled. Mr. and Mrs. Smith both took appeals to the Court of Appeals Mrs. Smith in her own case and Mr. Smith in his case as plaintiff against Milliken and in his case as defendant against Milliken as plaintiff. The Court of Appeals, distinguishing the cases of Penley v. Glover (1947) 30 Tenn. App. 289, 205 S.W.2d 757, and Alabama Highway Express, Inc. v. Luster (1963) 51 Tenn. App. 691, 371 S.W.2d 182, and placing heavy reliance upon the opinion of this Court in Nashville, C. &amp; St. L. Ry. v. White (1928) 158 Tenn. 407, 15 S.W.2d 1, affirmed the judgments of the trial court. Mr. and Mrs. Smith have now presented all three cases to this Court upon petition for certiorari. Petitioners contend here that the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the causes for new trials. The basis of such insistence is that the verdicts and judgments of the trial court are inconsistent and irreconcilable. In our view petitioners' contention must be sustained. The verdict and judgment for Mr. Milliken against Mr. Smith necessarily includes the fact conclusion that Mr. Milliken was not guilty of any negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident. The verdict and judgment in favor of Mrs. Smith against Mr. Milliken, on the contrary, essentially includes a finding that Mr. Milliken was guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, clearly, the verdicts and judgments are inconsistent and irreconcilable. These cases were tried together and the same evidence was presented to the same jury. The general rule is that verdicts which are inconsistent and irreconcilable must not be allowed to stand. Penley v. Glover, supra, and Alabama Highway Express, Inc. v. Luster, supra. The rule so well stated in these two opinions of the Court of Appeals should not be diluted by tenuous distinctions which embrace no real difference. The above decisions give full recognition to the part played in this type *477 of cases by the presence of questions relating to gross negligence and remote contributory negligence. Neither such element is in any way present in the instant cases. Laying aside, then, any consideration of these two mentioned elements, we have here a case which, it seems to us, falls squarely within the interdicting principles enunciated in the above cases. A sententious summary of the reason for the rule is found in the case of Penley v. Glover, supra: A clear and most comprehensive analysis and application of the rule appears in Alabama Highway Express, Inc., v. Luster, supra, wherein it is said: As previously stated, the Court of Appeals, in the instant case, bottomed its decision on certain language found in an opinion of this Court in the case of Nashville, C. &amp; St. L. Ry. v. White, supra. That language is as follows: It is of real importance to note, in the first place, that this Court used the quoted language in an opinion on four cases tried together which resulted in verdicts which were not, in fact, inconsistent. In addition, the language that "we must consider each case as if tried severally" was correct and applicable to the situation there presented. There, four separate actions were brought against the defendant railroad. Two of the plaintiffs recovered. Two other plaintiffs did not recover. That case involved a crossing accident. The two plaintiffs who recovered were physically situated quite differently from the two plaintiffs who did not recover. The opinion itself thoroughly refllects a basis for the jury concluding that the two plaintiffs who recovered were not guilty of proximate negligence, while finding that the two plaintiffs who did not recover were guilty of such negligence. For the foregoing reasons, this Court concludes that the verdicts and judgments in the cases at bar are both fatally inconsistent and irreconcilable. This requires that the judgment of the Court of Appeals be reversed and that these cases be remanded to the Circuit Court of Davidson County for new trial. The costs of this appeal are assessed against W.C. Smith, Jr. and Rupert L. Milliken, in equal shares. BURNETT, C. J., and WHITE, DYER and CHATTIN, JJ., concur.