Title: Bowman v. Gabel
Citation: 243 Ark. 728, 421 S.W.2d 898
Docket Number: 5-4373
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: December 18, 1967

421 S.W.2d 898 (1967) 243 Ark. 728 J. A. BOWMAN et al., Appellants, v. J. W. GABEL et al., Appellees. No. 5-4373. Supreme Court of Arkansas. December 18, 1967. Lewis D. Jones and John E. Butt, Fayetteville, for appellants. David J. Burleson, Fayetteville, for appellees. *899 HARRIS, Chief Justice. An automobile collision occurred in Fayetteville on September 9, 1965, about 6:30 P.M., in the intersection of Vandeventer Street, running north and south, and Adams Street, running east and west. There were no traffic controls or signs at the intersection. A 1962 Chevrolet sedan was being driven south on Vandeventer by James E. Gabel, and Diane Bowman was driving a 1965 Pontiac sedan east on Adams. The Chevrolet was owned by J. W. Gabel, father of the driver, and the Pontiac was owned by the operator and her father, J. A. Bowman. The Bowmans, appellants herein, instituted suit for damages to the Pontiac, and the Gabels, appellees herein, counterclaimed for damages to the Chevrolet, and for personal injuries. Each side contended that the other driver was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the collision. On trial, specific interrogatories were given to the jury, and it returned its verdict, finding that Diane Bowman Bassett[1] was not guilty of any negligence, and that James Gabel was guilty of negligence which proximately caused the collision; a verdict was rendered for the Bowmans in the sum of $1,250.00. Approximately a week later, appellees filed a motion for new trial, and thereafter, the court entered its order finding that the verdict of the jury "is not sustained by a preponderance of the evidence, that the answer, `No,' of the jury to special interrogatory No. 1 [which referred to whether there was any negligence on the part of Diane Bowman] was against the preponderance of the evidence in this cause; and that by reason thereof the Motion for New Trial herein should be sustained." The verdict of the jury, and the judgment of the court, in accordance therewith, were set aside, and a new trial was granted. From this judgment, appellants bring this appeal. For reversal, it is urged that the court applied the wrong rule of law in measuring the adequacy of the jury's verdict, and that, at any rate, the court clearly abused its discretion in granting the new trial for the reason that the evidence clearly preponderated in favor of the appellants. Appellants first argue than the trial judge invaded the province of the jury, which was charged with passing upon all fact questions, and that, there being substantial evidence to support the verdict, the court was in error in setting same aside. It is further contended that the preponderance of the evidence supports the finding by the jury. Of course, we will not disturb a judgment based upon a jury verdict if there is any substantial evidence to support it (unless the court erred in giving the law). But whether there was any substantial evidence, or even a preponderance of the evidence, is not the test where the court has already set aside a verdict, and that action is appealed to this court. The proper test is stated in the recent case of Worth James Construction Company v. Fulk, 241 Ark. 444, 409 S.W.2d 320. There, we said: Appellants say: *900 Several cases are cited, but none relate to our reversing the trial court for setting aside a jury verdict. Our rule, enunciated in James, is more fully set out, and explained in a case decided in 1916, Twist v. Mullinix, 126 Ark. 427, 190 S.W. 851. There, after stating tht the court had properly instructed the jury, and that there had been evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury, this court in an opinion by Mr. Justice Wood, proceeded to discuss the question which is at issue in the present litigation, as follows: The trial court, in setting aside the present judgment, apparently was greatly influenced by the fact that the jury found appellant Diane Bowman (Bassett), not guilty of any negligence. This appellant testified that she stopped at the intersection before entering; that a hedge was located on her left, which somewhat obstructed the view, so she "eased out a little bit and I still couldn't see, so I eased out a little bit more and I could see a car about half way down the block." She stated that she was about a foot from the middle of the intersection when she saw the automobile approaching. She continued, "I was just creeping, so it would be just a mile or two an hour, something like that * * * I thought, do I have time enough to go across and I decided, no, so I put my hand on the gear shift to put it in reverse." She said that before she was able to do that, the car, which was traveling 30 or 35 miles an hour, hit her automobile. A young lady in the car with her agreed that she was traveling about "one mile per hour," and this witness testified that the Gabel car was traveling 25 or 30 miles per hour. Gabel testified that as he approached the intersection, he looked to the left and found it clear, looked to the right, but there were shrubs that obstructed the view; however, he did not see any automobile; he then looked back to his left when entering the intersection, and he was hit by the Bowman vehicle. His sister, riding in the car with him, testified that appellant was driving at a "pretty rapid" speed. Photographs taken of the two vehicles reflect that the front end of the Pontiac (Bowman car) was pretty well smashed, and the right hand side of the Chevrolet (Gabel car) was crushed from a point just behind the right head light, the damage extending almost through the back door. A photograph of the front of the Chevrolet reveals no damage to that portion of appellee's car. This evidence indicates that Mrs. Bassett was mistaken when she said that the Gabel car struck her; rather, it would appear that her automobile did the striking. Of course, even though this be true, the mere fact that one car struck another does not necessarily mean that the driver of the first vehicle was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the collision. It is however a circumstance to be considered. Likewise, the court may have found it difficult to believe that the Gabel car traveled half a block at the speed mentioned by Mrs. Bassett and the witness on her behalf, while appellant's car was traveling only a few feet. Also, he may have considered that she was negligent in attempting to back up, rather than to proceed across the street. Still again, he simply may not have believed appellant's evidence about her speed, which was not uncontradicted. In fact, the Gabel girl testified that Mrs. Bassett was driving at a "pretty rapid speed." At any rate, as pointed out in Twist: In fact, this abuse of discretion is likewise characterized in the same opinion (as heretofore quoted) as acting improvidently, arbitrarily or capriciously. Among other definitions, one's actions are said to be arbitrary if they are unreasonable, determined by no principle, or based upon random or convenient selection or choice, rather than on reason. The word capricious, inter alia, means irresponsible, and impulsive, or refers to acts committed according to whim or passing fancy. Certainly, we cannot find that the action of the trial court came within any of these definitions, and it is just as certain that it is not manifest that the court acted arbitrarily in setting aside the verdict. Affirmed. [1] Miss Bowman was married to Mr. Bassett sometime subsequent to the automobile collision.