Court Opinion

ID: 9630061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:58:56.110987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:30.350936
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
In view of the fact that the issues of negligence, both on the part of the truck driver and the deceased, must in a large part be determined in this case by circumstantial evidence, we think both issues were properly submitted to the jury and that its verdict thereon is conclusive.
In the recent case of Hilyar v. Union Ice Company, involving a five-year old child, decided February 10, 1955, 279 P.2d 601, 602(1), a District Court of Appeal of California affirmed judgment for defendants on the ground the evidence was insufficient to raise a question for the jury as to the driver’s negligence with respect to lookout, speed and warning, the Court stated:
“Before a man can be saddled with a judgment to pay money for his negligence, his carelessness must be established by reliable evidence. To conclude Ingram’s negligence from the *446facts proved, a court would be required to do some speculating and conjecture that Ingram did not keep a look-out although he did; that he moved rapidly although he moved slowly; that he saw danger although he testified he sensed none.
“The law is that where the evidence received leaves a case in a mist of speculation, while it may be inferred from the injured condition of the body ■of the victim that he had been struck ■down, ‘ “yet these physical facts present no reasonable theory to the exclusion of many others as to the cir■cumstances under which the accident •occurred. * * * The evidence is
consonant with any of many theories which may be advanced with equal force, but all of which are speculative and rest in mere conjecture.” ’ Greene v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 120 Cal.App.2d 135, 142, 260 P.2d 834, 838. The evidence does not show that Raymond followed the truck or ran under it. Certainly there was no proof that he ran around it or otherwise came into Ingram’s area of vision.”
It is our opinion that under the facts in the case now before us, the matter was properly submitted to the jury and the judgment, based on its verdict, should be affirmed.
TAYLOR, C. J., concurs.