Opinion ID: 2151134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Amendments to conform to the evidence.

Text: When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure so to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so freely when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the objecting party fails to satisfy the court that the admission of such evidence would prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense upon the merits. The court may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence. See Helgeson v. Locken, 130 N.W.2d 573 (N.D.1964); Kucera v. Kucera, 117 N.W. 2d 810 (N.D.1962); Underwriters Salvage Co. v. Davis & Shaw Furniture Co., 198 F.2d 450 (U.S.Ct.App. 10th Cir. 1952). In addition, the issue of alcoholic beverages will be considered by this Court on trial anew, as we held in Steffen v. Boyle, 115 N.W.2d 8, 9 (N.D.1962), in paragraph 1 of the syllabus: Where an issue not raised by the complaint is tried, without objection, failure to amend the complaint does not affect the results of the trial, and the issue will be considered by this court in a trial de novo. The majority has cited Holcomb v. Striebel, 133 N.W.2d 435 (N.D.1965), wherein the term gross as applied to the negligence of a motorist in an action under the guest statute has reference to the mental attitude of the motorist in regard to the consequences which he should have foreseen and implies such gross recklessness as shows indifference to the consequences. I agree that gross negligence infers mental attitude. However, in reality, mental attitude is not a subjective matter but is an objective matter, to be determined by overt acts of the negligent party. The majority opinion states: Even if it was because he was intoxicated, it does not follow that it was gross negligence. It could as well have been ordinary negligence superinduced by intoxication., and cites Borstad v. LaRoque, 98 N.W.2d 16 (N.D.1959). Ordinary negligence superinduced by intoxication produces the same result as gross negligence and removes the protection of the guest statute as it applies to the host driver, under Borstad v. LaRoque, supra . Paragraph 2 of the syllabus of Borstad, supra, 98 N.W.2d at 18, states: Injury to or death of a guest proximately results from the intoxication of the owner, driver, or person responsible for the operation of a vehicle under the `guest statute', when the ordinary negligence of the host is a proximate cause  of the mishap and such negligence is superinduced by his intoxicated condition. This Court held in Borstad, supra, 98 N. W.2d at 24, as follows: In the light of the foregoing definitions which we approve, we hold that liability of the host under the `guest statute' is established when, by reason of intoxication, a host's normal mental and physical faculties for the safe and prudent operation of the motor vehicle are appreciably impaired and ordinary negligence of the host is thereby induced which proximately causes the mishap out of which the guest's injuries and damages arise. The facts in this case bring it within the doctrine enunciated by Borstad v. LaRoque, supra . I do not believe that Borstad v. LaRoque, supra , should be inferentially overruled and, if this Court is going to overrule Borstad, it should so state. The next issue is whether Mr. Bjerke assumed the risk in riding in an automobile driven by Mr. Lysne. In Borstad v. LaRoque, supra, 98 N.W.2d at 25, this Court said: As applied to the defense raised by the host driver in an action by his guest passenger where liability of the host arises in tort, the guest will be deemed to have `assumed the risk' of injury arising from the mishap when (1) the guest has knowledge of a situation that is dangerous beyond that normally inherent in the operation of a vehicle whether caused by the obvious incompetence of the driver or by the dangerous condition of the vehicle, or otherwise, (2) an appreciation of the danger and a voluntary choice to encounter it, and (3) an injury proximately caused by the danger presented. This defense is not available if wrongful conduct of third persons was a proximate cause of the mishap, unless such conduct, like any other contributory cause, could reasonably have been anticipated by the plaintiff at the time the risk was assumed and thus served to compose the danger. Thus I conclude that this question would not apply specifically to the liability of Mr. Heartso since Mr. Bjerke could not have anticipated Mr. Heartso's negligence, nor was Mr. Bjerke a party to it. However, it is necessary to determine whether Mr. Bjerke assumed the risk when he rode with Mr. Lysne. Where the guest has knowledge of substantial drinking of alcoholic beverages by the driver and there is evidence tending to show that such drinking was a contributing cause of the driver's negligence, the guest is not barred as a matter of law except where his knowledge of the physical incapacity of the driver and the surrounding circumstances are such that reasonable men could draw but one inference as to his negligence. Thus, this question is one for the jury or, as in the case at bar, for the trier of facts. See Sahli v. Fuehrer, 127 N.W.2d 900 (N.D. 1964). The record reveals that Mr. Bjerke had no reason to believe that Mr. Lysne was under the influence of alcoholic beverages. He did not show any signs of being incapacitated because of drinking, during the period of time which elapsed either while he was visiting at the Bjerke residence or starting the return trip to Devils Lake. Mr. Bjerke had ridden with Mr. Lysne from Devils Lake to the Bjerke home in Churchs Ferry. Mrs. Bjerke also testified that when they arrived at the Bjerke home and had coffee, they did not appear to be under the influence of alcoholic beverages. Therefore, it cannot be said that when Mr. Bjerke agreed to ride back to Devils Lake with Mr. Lysne, Mr. Bjerke was in fact aware of the probability that Mr. Lysne would operate his automobile in a negligent manner, superinduced by Mr. Lysne's consumption of alcoholic beverages. The issue of contributory negligence as it applies to Mr. Bjerke is not considered, for the reason that the record does not reveal any acts on Mr. Bjerke's part which contributed to the accident.  This Court has repeatedly held that where an appellant demands a trial de novo and a retrial of the entire case in an appeal from a judgment in an action tried to the court without a jury, the findings of the trial court will be given appreciable weight by the Supreme Court, especially where such judgment is based upon the testimony of witnesses who appeared in person before the trial court. Koistinen v. Farmers Union Oil Co. of Rolla, 179 N. W.2d 327 (N.D.1970); Renner v. Murray, 136 N.W.2d 794 (N.D.1965); Goheen v. Gauvey, 122 N.W.2d 204 (N.D.1963); Strobel v. Strobel, 102 N.W.2d 4 (N.D. 1960). In the case at bar, the trial was of considerable length and many witnesses took the stand. However, there were no surviving eyewitnesses to this automobile accident which claimed three lives. Thus all of the testimony was adduced from those persons who were in contact with the principals during the hours before the accident and from those experts who made a physical examination of the physical facts at the scene of the disaster. Certainly if this Court is ever to give appreciable weight to the findings of a trial court, it would have to do so in the instant case where the trial court was required to consider all of the evidence in order to make numerous and complex findings of fact before rendering a decision. The trial court's objective advantage in a case such as this one must be given appreciable weight by this Court. The majority opinion has stated that the trial judge neither dictated into the record his ratio decidendi nor did he issue a written memorandum opinion. The majority opinion states: All we have are findings of fact which, although signed by him, were written with the partisan pen of plaintiff's counsel. I submit that findings prevail over a memorandum opinion. If there had been a memorandum opinion issued and it had contained any inconsistency with the findings, the findings would have prevailed. Kack v. Kack, 142 N.W.2d 754 (N.D. 1966); Fischer v. Fischer, 139 N.W.2d 845 (N.D.1966). In addition, it is common practice in all trial courts in this State for prevailing counsel to prepare the findings, order for judgment, and judgment. It is submitted that once the findings have been approved by the trial judge, such findings become the findings of the court. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court. KNUDSON, J., concurs.