Court Opinion

ID: 9706534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:45:45.788034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:23.440076
License: Public Domain

On Petition For Rehearing.
Achor, J.
Appellee’s petition for- rehearing asserts three alleged errors in the opinion as written: (1) That the issue of appellant’s failure to install a safety device upon its elevator was not withdrawn from the jury as grounds of negligence, as stated; (2) that the court failed to discuss that issue in its opinion, and (3) that' the “. . . instructions as . . . given by the trial court, taken in their entirety, fairly instructed the jury and made harmless the error, if any, in refusing Appellant’s tendered instruction No. 6,”
The court, in its instruction No. 2 stated in part: “I instruct you . . . that the Defendant in this case was under no duty or obligation to provide the freight elevator in question with a safety device which would prevent the elevator in question from falling. . . .” It was upon that instruction and the oral argument of counsel that this court concluded that the issue of appellant’s failure to install a safety device had been withdrawn from the jury. However, it is immaterial to the determination of this case whether or not the effect of the above instruction was to withdraw the case from the jury, for the reason that appellant was clearly entitled to a new trial because of the *625refusal of the court to give appellant’s tendered instruction No. 6.
Appellee urges a rehearing on the ground that this court failed to give a written opinion upon the safety device issue. Appellee relies on Article 7, §5, of the Constitution of the State of Indiana. However, once this court had decided that reversible error had been committed by the trial court in failing to withdraw paragraph 6 (a), from the jury, as requested by appellant’s tendered instruction No. 6, this court was not required by the constitutional provision referred to to discuss any other issue raised on the appeal. This particular constitutional provision requires, on appeal, a decision with respect only to such question or questions as are necessary to “determination of the cause in the appellate court.” Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Taylor (1907), 39 Ind. App. 592, 596, 80 N. E. 436; Willets v. Ridgway (1857), 9 Ind. 367. See also 11 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, §111. As soon as this court determined that, on one ground alone, reversible error had been Committed in this case, the reversal of judgment required by that determination was a determination of this cause in this court. Thereafter a discussion of other issues that could not affect the necessity for reversal is not required.
Appellee urges that this court erred in holding that the trial court’s refusal to give appellant’s tendered instruction No. 6 was reversible error “inasmuch as Appellant’s instructions as tendered and given by the trial court, taken in their entirety, fairly instructed the jury and made harmless the error, if any, in refusing Appellant’s tendered instruction No. 6.” Such a contention is untenable. The rule is firmly established in this state that neither “instructions taken as a whole,” or the fact that the evidence is sufficient *626to support a verdict on other issues, excuses the refusal of a trial court to give an instruction that would withdraw from the jury an issue upon which there is no competent evidence. Northern Indiana Transit, Inc. v. Burk (1950), 228 Ind. 162, 89 N. E. 2d 905.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Note. — Reported in 115 N. E. 2d 215.
Rehearing denied 116 N. E. 2d 548.