Court Opinion

ID: 9731597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:51:55.391069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:19.979363
License: Public Domain

Broadfoot, J.
(on motion for rehearing). Because the above-entitled cases were consolidated for trial, were argued together upon appeal, and but one opinion was written, the joint motion for rehearing raised separate issues affecting each case.
In the case in which Beverly Petlock was plaintiff the following statement in the opinion was challenged (p. 76) :
“She had reached a point about 150 feet north of the driveway and her car was either stopped or proceeding very slowly upon the right-hand lane of the highway when it was struck by the Petlock car.”
The jury had found that the defendant Kickhafer was causally negligent with respect to stopping her automobile upon the highway, and that fact had been stated in the opinion. The sentence therefore is corrected to read:
“She had reached a point about 150 feet north of the driveway and her car was stopped on the right-hand lane of the highway when it was struck by the Petlock car.”
*78bWhether the defendant Kickhafer was stopped or proceeding very slowly at the time of the collision would be immaterial. The change made does not affect the outcome of the case and no change in the mandate is required because thereof.
As a second point in the Petlock case it is contended that the defendants did not challenge the award of damages upon the appeal and that the new trial should not include the issue of damages. In their brief the defendants state that they are satisfied with the jury’s award of damages to Beverly Petlock and are agreeable to a change in the mandate accordingly.
In the case in which Donna Mae Miller was plaintiff our attention is called to the fact that the damages awarded to the plaintiff were $5,968.74. Costs in the amount of $300.62 were taxed, and a judgment was entered in the sum of $6,269.36. Because of the fact that the defendant Petlock had made a settlement in the Miller case our opinion recited that the judgment in favor of Donna Mae Miller should be reduced to one half of the amount of the judgment, or the sum of $3,134.68. Plaintiff Miller now contends that the judgment should have been reduced only by one half of the amount of the damages found by the jury, together with the total amount of costs. The defendants oppose this contention.
Although no authorities are cited by either side the contention has merit. Because the defendants refused to settle, plaintiff Miller was required to go to trial, to produce witnesses, and to incur expenses that are the basis for the taxation of costs and disbursements.
The motion for rehearing is considered to be a motion to amend the mandate. Therefore the mandate herein is amended to read:
“By the Court. — The judgment in the action in which Beverly Petlock is plaintiff is reversed, and cause remanded *79for a new trial on the issue of the causal negligence of the parties only. The issue as to damages need not be retried. The judgment in the action in which Donna Mae Miller is plaintiff is modified by reducing the amount thereof to the sum of $3,284.99 and, as so modified, it is affirmed.”
The motion for rehearing is denied without costs.