Court Opinion

ID: 9614626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:26:57.060524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:20.926536
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Justice,
dissenting.
Although recognizing the generally accepted validity of the court’s discussion, I would respectfully disagree as to the affirmation of the trial court’s denial of directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or the motion for new trial, as requested by appellant as original plaintiff in this back-up and run-over, adverse-verdict case. Consequently, I dissent.
The pervasive criticism of the tort system of today is emotionally premised on contorted examples of extremity in jury-verdict result.1
The subject should be first analyzed under the principle of probability and the rule of possibility.2 Defined in logic or statistics, it equates to the realization that with sufficient occurrences nearly everything will happen sooner or later (principle of probability), and nearly anything can happen at any given time, no matter how unlikely (rule of possibility).
With the proliferated litigation of today, the justice delivery system is challenged to recognize that the principle of probability and the rule of possibility also apply to jury decisions. The rogue jury, the confused jury, and the overwhelmed jury are explicable and existent. Trial ability with expertise, method and preparation is not always equalized by the sophistication of juries in contemplation and conclusion.
*189The present unmitigated challenge' to the jury system is misplaced. However, resort to responsibility would be well decided. This is to say that the judicial responsibility to reasonable justice is not always adequately recognized in contemplation of the “sanctity of the jury verdict” where the result lacks rational justification.
The arena of reasonable result can be equalized to approximate justice, and, if exceeded, then system self-correction should be afforded in order to defend the institution in accomplishing its principal and generally successful societal responsibility.
Although other subjects are suitably considered in the context of the justice system self-correction, this case of DeJulio v. Foster comes to issue from the defendant’s verdict in a wrongful-death lawsuit.
In contemplation of jury fact-finding, there are four ways for jury self-correction:
(1) Motion for summary judgment, directed verdict, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of defendant, in cases where reasonable persons “normally” would not differ as to the evidence sufficiency to find the absence of claimed liability. Erickson v. Magill, Wyo., 713 P.2d 1182 (1986).
(2) Remittitur, where the jury verdict is excessive in dollar amount. Ford Motor Co. v. Kuhbacher, Wyo., 518 P.2d 1255 (1974); Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Hause, 1 Wyo. 27 (1871).
(3) Additur, where the jury verdict is inadequate in dollar amount. Venes v. Heck, 642 F.2d 380 (10th Cir.1981); Douglas Reservoirs Water Users Ass'n v. Cross, Wyo., 569 P.2d 1280 (1977) (nonjury).3
(4) Directed verdict on liability, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or a new trial in favor of plaintiff, where reasonable persons “normally” would not differ as to the evidence sufficiency to find the existence of claimed liability.4 Brown v. Sievers, Wyo., 410 P.2d 574 (1966).
Inconsistency of applied review and absence of judicial reactivity exist in the probability/possibility circumstances in all regards except summary judgment, and otherwise equivalency of result surely cannot be found in a case-by-case analysis, whether it is a ten-plus billion-dollar Texaco debacle or the verdict for defendant in this case. The justice institution is unbalanced in favoring summary judgment and nonrecov-ery disposition. Iglehart v. Petrossi, Wyo., 409 P.2d 964 (1966).
Inconsistencies, but more particularly uncertainties, spawn trial required resolution. A realistic demonstration and understanding of the contended parameters of probability/possibility are excellent medicine to cure an adventuresome trial proclivity.
The deserving plaintiff who fails to recover or recovers inadequately is equally denied justice, as is the case where an excessive or undeserved settlement or disposition is achieved.
*190We have, in this case, a relatively simple fact situation, as amply addressed by the majority opinion. Defendant, without looking to the rear, backed up a vehicle while a 12-year-old boy was apparently standing on the back bumper and who then jumped or fell off and was run over and killed. The defendant, as the driver, was a nice guy, a relative of the decedent, and a respected citizen. The boy was dead.
If one hundred juries heard this case, one would wonder how often a jury verdict would result in favor of the defendant.
Clear evidence of negligence exists (see rule of law stated in Fegler v. Brodie, Wyo., 574 P.2d 751 (1978)):
(1) Backing up without looking to that direction. Davies v. Dugan, Wyo., 365 P.2d 198 (1961).
(2) Backing up with young boys standing on the back bumper of the pickup. Holstedt v. Neighbors, Wyo., 377 P.2d 181 (1962).
(3) Backing up without knowing exactly where or how the boys were physically located on the back of the pickup. Cf. McDowall v. Walters, Wyo., 360 P.2d 165, reh. denied 361 P.2d 528 (1961).
(4) Backing up without looking at the terrain to determine the scope of danger to either passengers or vehicle.5 Blakeman v. Gopp, Wyo., 364 P.2d 986 (1961); Gilli-land v. Rhoads, Wyo., 539 P.2d 1221 (1975).
Instead of the actual conduct from which the death occurred, at least three distinct things should have been done by the driver to avoid negligence and the resulting death:
(1) Require safer vehicle location for children passengers and particularly so for reverse-direction travel;
(2) Physically determine location of passengers before starting to back up;
(3) Watch both boys and route for danger to passengers, in exercise of an obviously dangerous maneuver with young passengers on back of pickup, by maintaining a proper lookout.
The pervasive duty of lookout comes from managing the most destructive instrument of modern society, the motor vehicle.
Applying a reasoned-justice test of judicial responsibility, I would find “an irrational result” and consequent error in the trial court’s failure to grant summary judgment or judgment notwithstanding the verdict or finally a new trial after jury verdict. I cannot find even an inference from the record of due care, and would assert that the court in this case fails responsibility in desired recognition of the intervention obligation in the occurrence of extreme results as factored in the probability/possibility *191principle in jury conduct. Under the circumstances of this negligence case, a new trial should be granted. Vassos v. Roussalis, Wyo., 625 P.2d 768 (1981); Maxted v. Pacific Car & Foundry Co., Wyo., 527 P.2d 832 (1974); 2 Blashfield Automobile Law and Practice § 104, revised 3d ed. See Stowers v. Carp, 29 Ill.App.2d 52, 172 N.E.2d 370 (1961).
Error should also be found in the failure to give the instruction submitted by appellant on lookout, since it was intrinsic to the case presentation in the actual facts that the defendant did not even look to judge the scope of danger. Blashfield, supra, §§ 104.3, 104.4 and 104.5.
The case should be reversed, and a new trial granted.

. Compare philosophic discussions, Kalven, The Dignity of the Civil Jury, 50 Va.L.Rev. 1055 (1964); Tavris, The Law of an Unwritten Law: A Common Sense View of Jury Nullification, 11 Western State Univ.L.Rev. 97 (1983); Alexander, Civil Juries in Maine: Are the Benefits Worth the Costs?, 34:1 Maine L.Rev. 63 (1982), in the context of the oft-repeated comments of the Chief Justice of the United States.

. A rule is precise, is not a matter of weight, and is declared to be valid by the authority. A principle is not a matter of relative specificity and is asserted and cannot be declared. Fletcher, Two Modes of Legal Thought, 90 Yale L.J. 970, 978 (1981).

. A significant body of law is developing as considering both additur and remittitur, which includes evolving principles and rules. Note, Civil Procedure — Abuse of Discretion Standard— Worthington v. Bynum, 18 Wake Forest L.Rev. 1111 (1982); Carlin, Remittiturs and Additurs. 49 W.Va.L.Rev. 1 (1942); Commentary, Remit-titur Practice in Alabama, 34 Ala.L.Rev. 275 (1983); Comment, Appellate Remittitur, 33 Mo. L.Rev. 637 (1968); Pippen v. Denison, Division of Abex Corporation, 66 Mich.App. 664, 239 N.W.2d 704 (1976); Pearl River Valley Water Supply District v. Brown, Miss., 202 So.2d 919 (1967); Earl T. Browder, Inc. v. County Court of Webster County, 145 W.Va. 696, 116 S.E.2d 867 (1960); Lent v. Huntoon, 143 Vt. 539, 470 A.2d 1162 (1983); Hardy v. Ruhnke, 41 N.J. 10, 218 A.2d 861 (1966); Genzel v. Halvorson, 248 Minn. 527, 80 N.W.2d 854 (1957); Dorsey v. Barba, Cal.App., 226 P.2d 677 (1951); United States v. 93,970 Acres of Land, 258 F.2d 17 (7th Cir.1958), rev’d on other grounds 360 U.S. 328, 79 S.Ct. 1193, 3 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1959); Jehl v. Southern Pacific Company, 66 Cal.2d 821, 59 Cal.Rptr. 276, 427 P.2d 988 (1967).

. It is recognized that courts háve applied a different standard for granting a new trial as more lenient when compared with a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Cody v. Atkins, Wyo., 658 P.2d 59 (1983); Tidewater Oil Co. v. Waller, 302 F.2d 638 (10th Cir.1962); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Yeatts, 122 F.2d 350 (4th Cir.1941).

. Defendant testified:
“Q. * * * And then as I understand it, Kelly Tegler and Eric DeJulio got on the back bumper or stood on the back bumper; is that correct?
“A. Yes.
"Q. After you righted the pump jack, you got back in the cab; is that correct?
“A. Yes.
"Q. It’s my understanding that you then backed up, but you were watching to the east for any vehicles that might be approaching from the east; is that correct?
"A. They were both standing on the bumper with both hands on the tailgate before I started to back up. And then I looked to make sure there was no vehicles coming from the east.
"Q. So in fact when you did back up you weren’t looking backwards; is that correct? "A. That’s correct.
“Q. You didn’t look in either — as you backed up, as I understand it, you didn’t look in either the rearview mirror in the cab or in either of the side mirrors; is that correct? “A. I don’t think I did.
"Q. And then however it happened you backed over Eric; isn’t that correct?
“A. Yes.
"Q. So you don’t know where Eric was at the time that you backed over him; isn’t that correct? You don’t know if he was getting in the bed of the truck; isn’t that correct?
"A. I don’t know that, no.
“Q. And you don’t know if he had gotten off and was standing on the ground; isn’t that correct?
"A. I don’t know that.
“Q. And you don’t know whether or not he may have fallen off; isn’t that correct?
"A. That’s correct.”