Court Opinion

ID: 9550587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:37:44.635603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:54.916402
License: Public Domain

WOOD (Parker), J.
I concur in the judgment and in the part of the opinion which is to the effect that the jury did *349not return a verdict. That part of the opinion was a sufficient disposition of the appeal.
In my opinion, the declarations of this court regarding various additional questions as to bailment, assumption of risk, res ipsa loquitur, and certain instructions are not necessary or appropriate on this appeal and will tend to restrict the trial judge, upon the retrial, in declaring the law. It might well be that the evidence upon the retrial will be substantially different from the present evidence. In any event, it is reasonable to believe that the retrial judge will be confronted with conflicting claims regarding the applicability of the doctrine of “law of the case”; and that he will have the additional burden of comparing the evidence in the first trial and in the retrial for the purpose of determining whether the doctrine is applicable. Under the circumstances of this case, the retrial judge should be free to declare the law, in the light of the most recent decisions available at the time of trial, without being required to compare the evidence in the two trials to determine whether he is bound by the several declarations of law as stated on this appeal.
A petition for a rehearing was denied August 19, 1958, and the following opinion was then rendered:
WOOD (Parker), J.—I would deny a rehearing and would modify the main opinion by deleting the portions which are referred to in my concurring opinion as being unnecessary on this appeal.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 17, 1958. Gibson, C. J., Carter, J., and Traynor, J., were of the opinion that a hearing should be granted.