Court Opinion

ID: 9711190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:26:11.034064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:02.734551
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
STRUTZ, Judge.
The defendants have filed a petition for rehearing, raising several issues which were covered in the original opinion. We will deal with these issues not necessarily in the same order in which they are raised in the petition.
The defendants again urge that the presence of the minor children in the courtroom was prejudicial error, since they were too young to testify and the only reason for their presence was to influence the jury.
We will adhere to the views in our original opinion on this matter.
A second issue raised by the defendants’ petition for rehearing is that the damages are excessive and not supported by the pleadings, and that they cannot be sustained. Defendants then argue that the evidence as to personal injuries of Vickie and Jeffrey Bartholomay, the two minor children, does not sustain the sums of $2,500 and $500 which the jury awarded to them respectively. They point to the testimony of the doctors that, except for the scar, Vickie had fully recovered.
We again have carefully examined the record. It discloses that Vickie suffered, among other things, a compound fracture of the right arm with fragments of the bone extending through the wound, lacerations and a fracture of the right leg, lacerations of the scalp and a fracture of the skull with evidence of brain trauma, and partial paralysis of the right facial area and of the right leg and arm. In other words, this child received severe and painful injuries. The verdict of $2,500 for her personal injuries was not excessive.
The boy, Jeffrey, suffered injuries which were far less severe. He did suffer lacerations, cuts, and bruises to his head and face. Colored photographs of his injuries and of his scars, which were taken ten days after the accident, were admitted in evidence without objection by the defendants. These show that the injuries sustained by the boy were such that a verdict of $500 which was awarded to him cannot be said to be excessive.
Defendants also point out that the trial court, in its instructions, advised the jury that the amount of damages which it might allow could not exceed the amount prayed for in the complaint. The court did instruct that the jury was limited by the amount sued for and pointed out:
“Therefore, if you find that the defendant John R. Quam was negligent and such *291negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries complained of, you will return a verdict in favor of Vickie Lynn Bartholo-may not to exceed $25,000.00 and a verdict for Jeffrey Bartholomay not to exceed $2500.00, in an amount which will fairly and adequately compensate each of them for the pain, suffering and disability which each incurred up to this time, and which will fully, fairly and adequately compensate Vickie Lynn Bartholomay for any future pain and suffering which you have found she may reasonably endure in the future, if any.”
The defendants then contend that this limits the amount which the jury could award to the children, since no exception was taken to this part of the instructions and that this portion of the instructions thus became the law of this case.
The reference by the court to the limits of $25,000 and $2,500 for these minor children referred to the action which had been brought for them for their own personal injuries. It had no reference to any claim which they might have for the wrongful -death of their mother. Just prior to the •court’s instructions as to the limitation on recovery by these minors, referred to in the defendants’ petition, the court had instructed in reference to an award for the death of Diane Bartholomay, the plaintiff’s wife and the children’s mother. He told the jury that if it allowed the plaintiff husband and the children an amount for the death of Diane, the damages should be stated in one lump sum and that the court would apportion this sum among the husband and the minor children later, and that the total amount awarded for Diane’s death could not exceed $75,000, the amount demanded in the complaint.
The court then submitted to the jury three separate forms of verdict. The first form provided for the awarding of damages to Gordon Bartholomay and to the two minor children, as the surviving husband and the children of Diane Bartholomay, for whose wrongful death the suit was being prosecuted. It further provided for damages to Gordon Bartholomay as the surviving father of the unborn child of Diane Bartho-lomay, for damages for Vickie and Jeffrey Bartholomay for personal injuries which were suffered by each of them, and, finally, for damages for the plaintiff Gordon Bartholomay for personal injuries suffered by him.
The second form of verdict submitted to the jury provided l&pr damages for the two minor children as the surviving children of Diane Bartholomay, deceased, and for personal injuries suffered by each of such minor children.
The third form of verdict was for a dismissal of the complaint in the event the jury found for the defendants.
The record discloses that, before the instructions were submitted to the jury, the proposed instructions, together with the above-mentioned forms of verdict set out therein, were submitted by the court to the attorneys in the case. The trial court, in chambers and out of the presence of the jury, pointed out that the proposed instructions had been handed to counsel and then stated:
“ * * * and at this time I want to ask you, Mr. Hansen, have you had sufficient time to examine the proposed instructions ?
“MR. HANSEN: I believe I have, Your Honor.
“THE COURT: Mr. Stokes?
“MR. STOKES: I believe I have.
“THE COURT: Under Rule 51(c), Gentlemen, I would ask you to state any objection or exception to these instructions: that you would want to make for the: record, * *
 Both sides then took exceptions: to certain of the proposed instructions, but no exception was taken by the defendants; to that portion of the instructions which permitted the jury to bring, in a verdict for *292the minor children for the wrongful death of their mother and for their own personal injuries, being the second form of verdict submitted to the jury. Where the defendant fails to object to forms of verdict which are set out and carefully explained in the trial court’s instructions, and which are a part of the instructions, after having been given an opportunity to object, he cannot thereafter claim error when the jury returns one of such verdicts. 5A C.J. S. Appeal and Error § 1763(1), p. 1165, footnote 14.54; Salvatore v. City of Harper Woods, 372 Mich. 14, 124 N.W.2d 780; Gendler v. S. S. Kresge Co., 195 Minn. 578, 263 N.W. 925. As counsel for the defendants himself concedes, instructions to which no exceptions are taken become the law of the case, even though they may erroneously state the law. McCullagh v. Fortune, 76 N.D. 669, 39 N.W.2d 771.
Thus the verdict for the minor children, Vickie and Jeffrey, for the wrongful death of their mother was proper under the instructions as given to the jury without objection.
The final issue raised by the petition for rehearing is the matter of collision, and the trial court’s failure to specifically instruct on that point.
The court fully and fairly instructed the jury on the question of negligence, contributory negligence, and proximate cause. We have carefully reviewed the entire record, and there is no evidence supporting the defendants’ theory of noncontact. Not one witness, including the defendant driver, testified positively that there was no contact between the truck and the plaintiff’s car. Pieces of the plaintiff’s vehicle’s tail light were found in the left rear dual of the defendant’s truck. A part of the tail light was found some forty feet to the north of the point of impact, in the south lane of traffic on the west side of the highway, where plaintiff’s car had been traveling. The defendant Quam admitted that he may have hit the plaintiff’s car. Not one witness denied contact, and the only positive statement that there was no contact is that of the defendants’ attorney.
 While the trial court could have instructed on the question of contact, it was not error for the court to refuse to instruct on a theory of the defendants which is not supported by any evidence. Only such issues as are raised by the pleadings and supported by the evidence need be submitted to the jury.
For reasons stated herein, the petition for rehearing is denied.
TEIGEN, C. J., and ERICKSTAD and KNUDSON, JJ., concur.
PAULSON, J., not being a member of the Court at the time of submission of this case, did not participate.