Court Opinion

ID: 9668793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:26:27.75559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:48.302582
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Garwood
dissenting.
The respondents sought a severance and the court later granted one over the protest of the petitioners. I think it is fair to assume that the severance was brought about by the respondents. Under the circumstances of the case, this is the equivalent of saying that the respondents sought to have the case tried on the theory that the injury to the petitioners was not indivisible. There was no logical reason for a severance otherwise, and the trial court evidently so understood it when he submitted the damage issue on the basis of the damages caused by the respondents alone. I accordingly feel that the respondents are in no position to complain of the damage issue and that, the trial court evidently being in error in denying exemplary damages on motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we should accordingly reverse both courts below in part and render judgment for the petitioners in the full amount reflected by the verdict.
Opinion delivered May 15, 1957.
Rehearing overruled June 19, 1957.