Court Opinion

ID: 9857653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 15:52:09.267081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:51.954811
License: Public Domain

UHLENHOPP, Justice
(dissenting).
I think that defendant has been entrapped by procedure. In the trial court plaintiff won on liability and defendant won on damages. Both parties filed motions for new trial — plaintiff, on damages, and defendant, on liability. Defendant told the trial court that its motion on liability should be considered only if the court sustained plaintiff’s motion on damages. If the court had sustained plaintiff’s motion, defendant could have appealed. If the court had overruled plaintiff’s motion and plaintiff had appealed, defendant could have cross appealed.
*9Plaintiff, however, did not wait for a ruling on his motion, and appealed. A majority of this court hold that since the trial court did not sustain plaintiffs motion, defendant waived its motion. But defendant’s statement that its motion should be considered only if the trial court sustained plaintiff’s motion contemplated that the court would rule on plaintiff’s motion, one way or the other. Hence no waiver occurred when plaintiff appealed before such a ruling.
The scene has simply shifted to this court. Plaintiff is still asking for consideration of the damage question and defendant is still asking for consideration of the liability question. The majority is considering plaintiff’s question. Plaintiff should not be able, by the tactic of appealing before the trial court ruled, to deprive defendant of the opportunity to have this court consider the liability question.
I would proceed to the merits of the liability question. If liability does not exist, then the damage question need not be considered. But if plaintiff developed a case on liability, then the damage question would also be considered.