Court Opinion

ID: 9743861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:47:15.912158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:44.504987
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
Staton, J.
Noble Hacker’s argument is with the sufficiency of the evidence. He contends that it does not support the trial court’s “Special Findings of Facts.” This is an appeal from a negative judgment. No error is presented on appeal. Hiatt v. Yergin (1972), 152 Ind. App. 497, 284 N.E.2d 834; James v. McCaffry (1973), 157 Ind. App. 480, 300 N.E.2d 889. It is only when the evidence is without conflict and leads to one conclusion and the trial court reaches a contrary conclusion that the trial court’s judgment will be reversed as contrary to law. Columbia Realty Corporation v. Harrelson (1973), 155 Ind. App. 604, 293 N.E.2d 804; Senst v. Bradley (1971), 150 *33Ind. App. 113, 275 N.E.2d 573. A review of all the evidence gives ample support to the trial court’s “Special Findings of Facts” Numbers “12” and “13.” Any presumption of gross negligence was rebutted by the evidence as the trial court concluded in its judgment. The trial court’s judgment should be affirmed.
Note. — Reported at 304 N.E.2d 552.