Court Opinion

ID: 9736054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:42:00.390355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:03.713453
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
Wiltrout, J.
I concur in the result reached in this case, but do not concur in that part of the majority-opinion which holds that error in a trial court’s action in directing a verdict may not be presented by an independent assignment of errors.
The following wording was added to Rule 1-7 in 1943:
“The court’s action in directing or refusing to direct a verdict shall be shown by order book entry. Error may be predicated upon such ruling or upon the giving or refusing to give a written instruction directing a verdict.”
The purpose of this change in the Rule seems clear. It was apparently intended to obviate a somewhat technical line of holdings. It was formerly held that a specification in a motion for new trial that the court erred in overruling or sustaining a motion for a directed verdict presented no question, but that the error which must be specified in the motion for new trial was the giving or refusing to give a peremptory instruction. Wahl Co. v. Compton (1941), 109 Ind. App. 631, 36 N. *621E. 2d 942; McKinnon v. Parrill (1942), 111 Ind. App. 343, 38 N. E. 2d 1008; Chicago & Erie R. Co. v. Patterson (1941), 110 Ind. App. 94, 34 N. E. 2d 960; Bartley v. Chicago & E. I. Ry. Co. (1942), 220 Ind. 354, 41 N. E. 2d 805; Long v. Archer (1943), 221 Ind. 186, 46 N. E. 2d 818; Kubisz v. Pomorski (1943), 221 Ind. 655, 51 N. E. 2d 82.
That the erroneous action of the court in directing a verdict or in refusing to direct a verdict is “error of law occurring at the trial,” Burns’ 1946 Replacement, § 2-2401, and hence a proper ground of a motion for new trial seems clear, even in the absence of Rule 2-6.
Were we free to hold that the error cannot be presented by an independent assignment of error, I would have less difficulty in agreeing with the majority opinion on this point. But, while not directly so holding, the Supreme. Court has strongly intimated that, in its opinion, under the present Rule 1-7, an independent assignment of error is proper, and I feel that we should be bound by such intimation. Hansbrough v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 688, 94 N. E. 2d 534.
The wording of the independent assignment of error in this case that, “the judgment of the jury directed by the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law,” in my opinion, does not even remotely approach a proper assignment of error in directing the verdict, even, though such error may be assigned independently. I, therefore, concur in the result reached in the majority opinion.
Note. — Reported in 101 N. E. 2d 721.