Opinion ID: 2085722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction #11 was a standard (stock) instruction on assured clear distance ahead. Section 321.285, Code of Iowa, I.C.A.

Text: Instruction #12 instructed the jury in the words of the statute requiring a driver to drive at a careful and prudent speed. Section 321.285, Code of Iowa, I.C.A. Defendant excepted to the giving of these instructions. In the light of the evidence we cannot say that the giving of the instructions was prejudicial error. We have examined the instructions in their entirety, together with the objections and exceptions thereto. We find no such error as to require a new trial. VII. In connection with the motion for new trial an affidavit from each of the 12 jurors was submitted. The affidavits are in substantial agreement. They state in substance that the jury first determined the question of contributory negligence and that plaintiff should recover from defendant. The jury then discussed damages with different amounts suggested. It was then suggested that each juror write a figure on a piece of paper and that the amounts be averaged for discussion and to determine the thinking of the jury. The result was a figure of about $2,300 for pain and suffering. There was no prior agreement to be bound thereby. There was a subsequent discussion and final unanimous agreement that the verdict should be $2,300 plus the specific items for car damage and medical expense or a total of $2,473.49. The verdict was attacked and found by the trial court to be a quotient verdict. The proposition has not been argued here. In Sheker v. Jensen, 241 Iowa 583, 589, 41 N.W.2d 679 we said: It is the rule in this state that an agreement of jurors to each vote the amount of damages to be allowed and to divide the sum total by twelve, with no agreement to be bound by the result, followed by further fair and open discussion and the return of the verdict accordingly, does not constitute a quotient verdict. It is clear that in the case at bar there was no quotient verdict. Further discussion is unnecessary.