Court Opinion

ID: 9684788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:13:51.046758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:59.588550
License: Public Domain

TEIGEN, Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent. The colloquy between Juror Reisenauer and the court, set forth in the majority opinion, makes it crystal clear that the juror was in complete agreement with the verdict tendered if the jury was required to find gross negligence to establish liability. There were two actions consolidated for the purpose of trial. They were brought by two guest passengers in an automobile against their host for personal injuries sustained as a result of an accident. A verdict of dismissal was returned in each case. The court instructed the jury that to find the defendant liable in either of these cases, the jury must find that the defendant was grossly negligent. This is required by our law. The dissenting juror clearly stated that if it was necessary to find gross negligence “we just couldn’t find anything that would come under gross negligence.” He indicated a desire to find liability on “just negligence.” Therefore, his dissent, if any, was with the law and not the verdicts tendered under the law as given them by the court.
It is the duty of the court to determine the law and to instruct the jury as to the law to be applied. The function of the jury is to find the facts and apply the law as given it by the court. There was no reason for the court to send the jury back to *218the jury room for further deliberation. It is clear all jurors agreed to the verdicts tendered and accepted by the court. It was a unanimous verdict.
BURKE, C. J., concurs in Judge Teigen’s dissent.