Court Opinion

ID: 9553538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:31:28.245066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:33.313295
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring).
I concur. In doing so, I feel constrained to defend the main opinion against what I think may be some disarming and perhaps unrealistic bits of criticism and bigger bits of deification of the jury system.
The dissent decries this court’s negation of the jury’s verdict. This court has taken such a course in more than a few opinions, —some of which have been sired by the dissent’s author.
The dissent volunteers that “The jury undoubtedly thought that the defendant’s conduct was highly irrational.” With equal *403facility I could suggest that “The jury undoubtedly thought the insurance company could afford to pay up to the policy limit, —$10,000,” possibly discounting somewhat the plaintiff’s statutory liability. It is rather interesting to this writer to observe how many jury verdicts just happen to be a round figure $10,000. Without saying so out loud, one might guess that more than one jury might have stretched the dollar and shriveled the concept of tort liability, especially, where it seems almost obvious the jury knew there would be $10,000 available from insurance which the alleged tort-feasor would not have to pay.
The dissent’s painstaking detail of plaintiff’s injuries and the seriousness thereof tends to prove my point, — that the jury also detailed them and decided that under the circumstances, it should grant him a judgment for that reason. Injuries should not be canvassed as a reason for a judgment but only as an incidence of liability.
There have been more instances than one where a wife has sued her own husband under guest statutes, accusing him of being a reckless incompetent and has obtained a verdict against him payable by his insurance. Very likely together they may buy a new car in his name with the money.
I think the jury system still is the best system, but in some cases it can serve as an anathema to the law.