Court Opinion

ID: 9560792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:56:07.491851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:11.928837
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent, and in doing so respectfully suggest that the main opinion has reported mostly the facts in favor of the result it reaches and has engaged in an argument with itself in order to justify its conclusion.
A fair, and I believe accurate, abstract of the facts which are uncontradicted, which are not speculative and which represent the really substantial competent evidence introduced are as follows: At dusk, after sunset, defendant, traveling northerly with his wife at between 22-25 m. p. h., car lights burning, saw some children on the opposite side of the road about 200 feet ahead. Thereupon he removed his foot *442from the gas pedal and slowed down slightly. He observed a car approaching ahead and saw some children move away from the road when it passed them. He then passed the car about 100 feet from the site of an ensuing accident. Thereafter, at an estimated 75 feet, defendant saw plaintiff, who proved to be a 3^4 year old' child, dart into the street from the sidewalk on the opposite side of the highway. Immediately defendant applied his brakes and, except for an undetermined 3-foot break in the skidmarks, skidded his car the entire remaining distance, but too late to avoid hitting the child with the left front fender cmd headlight. He came to a full stop within 5 or 6 feet beyond the impact, alighted and began assisting the little boy. Expert witnesses hypothetically agreed that one traveling at 25 m. p. h. could have stopped 10 feet short of the accident, assuming the child was seen at 75 feet, and assuming a normal reaction time and average normal friction and braking facilities.
It is impossible for this writer to understand how, under such circumstances, the trial court could say that the jury’s verdict in favor of defendant was “against the clear preponderance of the evidence.” To so conclude under the uncontroverted facts of this case would be tantamount, in my opinion, to adjudging a motorist negligent as a matter of law who, lawfully traveling in a posted 20 m. p. h. school zone, on the side of the road nearest the school, strikes a child who suddenly and without warning, darted into the path of the motorist who saw the child 75 feet back and immediately applied his brakes, being unable to stop within time. It seems to me that the conclusion reached in the main opinion does violence to the reasonable, prudent man concept in negligence cases, declares that a jury of reasonable persons could arrive at no other conclusion than a finding that there was negligence under the circumstances mentioned, places a premium on the conclusion of one individual who could, in a given case, render impotent a genuine and most reasonable conclusion arrived at by a jury of our neighbors and lays undue emphasis on split-second calculations indulged in hypothetical questions based on conjecture.
The main opinion arrives at its conclusion at least partially, by considering evidence not introduced at the trial and seems to admit that it does so when it says that “From this must be subtracted the length of the wheelbase of the car, which figure was not given by any witness.” It then indulges in a bit of conjecture when it says, “This break in the skidmarks would indicate that defendant failed to keep his brake continuously depressed after applying the same.” It might indicate something else, too, but it is difficult to understand what place such conjecture has in the decision here.
*443It seems obvious to this writer that the trial court acted in a most arbitrary manner in granting the motion for a new trial. He had theretofore committed himself to a belief that the jury’s verdict was correct. After the jury was discharged, the foreman and another venireman approached him, and the following conversation took place:
“The Court: Did the six people who signed this verdict sign the verdict because they feel the man was not negligent?
“Jury Foreman: That’s right.
“The Court: Or because they felt that the damages were nominal?
“Jury Foreman: No, because he was not guilty of negligence.
“The Court: Is that the opinion of the six that signed?
“Jury Foreman: Yes. * * *
“The Court: There were some of them that would have liked to have awarded a verdict for specials only?
“Jury Foreman: They felt the man had a moral obligation.
“The Court: But not a legal obligation?
“Jury Foreman: Not a legal obligation. In other words, they felt he was not negligent in his actions, but that he did have a moral obligation. That was the question the jury wanted to ask you that we were not permitted to ask.
“The Court: If that is their opinion, the verdict is correct. Is there further enquiries of the foreman of the jury?
“Mr. Kunz: Mr. Beazer would like to have a question here.
“Mr. Beazer: That was my question. * * *
“The Court: Was there ever six of them who felt that Mr. Nelson was negligent ?
“Mr. Beazer: No.
“The Court: Your verdict is correct. It may be filed.”
It will be seen, therefore, that immediately after the verdict was entered, on February 23, 1957, the trial court, having the testimony and evidence fresh in his mind, nonetheless said that the verdict was correct. A motion for new trial was filed on March 4, 1957, and on June 11, 1957, almost four months later, it was granted. This motion was granted, it would appear, without the trial court having the benefit of any transcript of the evidence, since the transcript, according to the court reporter’s certificate, was not completed until September 9,1957, three months after the order was entered granting a new trial.
Sending this case back for a new trial, saying that “this accident never should have *444happened; it was preventable,” is a waste of time, since it is obvious that if there is another trial and the jury again finds no negligence, all that the plaintiff need do is to appeal again to this court, and, under the decision here, it would have to be reversed, and another trial ordered. This could go on ad infinitum until finally a jury would hold for the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff cannot lose in this case. It would be more sensible, in my opinion, if the case were sent back for the assessment of damages only, saying what the main opinion in substance and effect has said, that defendant is liable as a matter of law. (Emphasis mine.)