Court Opinion

ID: 9726973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:14:49.754714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:32.104297
License: Public Domain

Concurring Statement
Sullivan, P.J.
I concur in the result reached by the majority as to Issue I but cannot agree that a directed verdict may be avoided by “some” evidence in the sense that “some” means “any”. See Mamula v. Ford Motor Company (1971), 150 Ind. App. 179, 275 N.E.2d 849 (dissenting opinion) at 854.
I am able to agree that upon the evidence of record, the matter of defendant’s negligence as a proximate cause of Gregory’s damage should have been submitted to the jury but I am able to agree with little of what the majority states as *258a legal basis for that conclusion. As to Issue I, I therefore concur in result only.
I concur in the opinion of my colleagues as to Issue II.