Court Opinion

ID: 9532847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:25:29.009102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:51.179843
License: Public Domain

Schroeder, J.,
concurring: I am in agreement with the court’s opinion, but under the circumstances feel compelled to make an additional observation. To support the trial court’s decision, and the plaintiffs position on appeal, one must assume from the answer of the jury to special question No. 2 that had the sensitivity test been read it would have indicated a positive reaction. But this is inconsistent with the legal import of the answer to question No. 1— a specific finding that the reaction was negative.
The plaintiffs case was tried on the theory the sensitivity test indicated a positive reaction. This was the vital issue in the case. A specific finding that the reaction to the sensitivity test was negative repels the assumption that had the sensitivity test been read it would have indicated a positive reaction. The specific finding of the jury that the reaction was negative is therefore inconsistent with the general verdict. Under these circumstances, the special finding controls and the general verdict for the plaintiff cannot stand.
Price, J., joins in the foregoing concurring opinion.