Opinion ID: 2222973
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: There is merit in defendant's third assignment. The trial court in its ruling stated in part:

Text: The court finds that the plaintiff did introduce substantial evidence that defendant was reckless and not merely careless considering the plaintiff's evidence in the most favorable light as this court must.   . (Emphasis supplied) Defendant insists this shows an improper application of the burden of proof. Plaintiffs do not deny their burden of proof and agree that in sustaining their burden they are not entitled to have their evidence considered in its most favorable light. They urge, in justification, the language quoted was a reference only to the trial court's function in law matters to consider the evidence in plaintiff's most favorable light in determining whether a jury question has been generated. Rule 344(f)(2), Rules of Civil Procedure. A similar problem arises in the trial court's conclusions: The court concludes as a matter of law that the plaintiff has met his burden of proof of recklessness on the part of the defendant. (Emphasis supplied) Of course the plaintiff did not and was not required to meet the burden as a matter of law. We are of course bound by the findings of fact of the trial court if they are supported by substantial evidence; it is only when such findings are undisputed or no conflicting inferences may be drawn from them that we may interfere. We may also find error if the trial court applied erroneous rules of law which materially affected the decision. (Emphasis supplied) France v. Benter, 256 Iowa 534, 536, 128 N.W.2d 268, 270. See also Werthman v. Catholic Order of Foresters, 257 Iowa 483, 133 N.W.2d 104. We are unable to assume the two legal errors did not figure in the trial court's determinations. Therefore the following language from Werthman is appropriate: The conclusion is inescapable that the court applied an erroneous standard of care, an erroneous rule of law, in reaching its determination of the liability of the defendants under the facts. It had a right to find the facts; but it weighed them on a faulty scale of law. 257 Iowa 492, 133 N.W.2d at 110.