Court Opinion

ID: 9668579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:18:37.237399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:46.151107
License: Public Domain

Fairchild, J.
(dissenting). In my opinion there was no prejudicial error which requires a new trial in Podlesny v. Risch. There may appear to be an inconsistency between the ruling on the first trial that Risch was causally negligent in turning left and the verdict on the second trial that he was negligent as to lookout but not management and control. Such inconsistency seems to me, however, to be one of form but not substance. Risch invaded Podlesny’s lane in the process of making or beginning to make a left turn. That action of Risch was certainly the dominant cause of the collision. Evidently Risch started to make his turn because he did not see Podlesny approach. The jury answered that Risch was negligent as to lookout but not negligent as to management and control, apparently reasoning that he made the turn in ignorance of danger and that it was the lack of attention which caused the ignorance which was the real cause of the difficulty. Risch was charged by the jury with 80 per cent of the responsibility. In my opinion the record does not require us to say that the jury’s reasoning was wrong.