Court Opinion

ID: 9633274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:41:12.74647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:32.232584
License: Public Domain

WOOD, J.
I dissent. It cannot be determined, of course, whether the jury found that the driver was not guilty of wilful misconduct, or whether it found that he was guilty of wilful misconduct but that the guests assumed the risk of riding with him. If the jury found that the driver was not guilty of wilful misconduct, that finding, in my opinion, was not supported by the evidence. If the jury found that the driver was guilty of wilful misconduct but that the guests assumed the risk of riding with him, then it necessarily appears that the jury disbelieved the uncontradicted testimony of Bruce Tobian, the surviving guest, that he and Charles Mosconi, the deceased guest, told the driver “several times to slow down” and that the driver “just didn’t pay any attention to us.” That witness was not impeached in any respect and that testimony was not at all unreasonable. In view of such terrific speed of the light automobile upon a narrow and hazardous public highway, where many other automobiles were being driven, it would seem reasonable that the guests would demand that the driver slow down.
If the verdict was based upon a finding that such testimony of Bruce Tobian was not true, it should appear clearly that the rights of plaintiffs to a fair trial were not preju*233dicially affected by remarks of the trial judge. Upon the hearing of the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, the attorney for plaintiff who tried the case filed his affidavit which recited in part as follows: ‘1 That during the trial the Court, in the presence of the jury, stated from the bench that in all his thirty years experience no ease had been filed similar to the one on trial.” It does not appear that any counteraffidavit was filed by defendant’s attorneys, or that any denial of said alleged statement was made by said attorneys or the judge or anyone. Even though the shorthand reporter did not report said alleged part of the proceedings, it appears that it is true that the trial judge made said statement. The jury might well have interpreted that remark of the judge to mean such cases were not filed and that they had no merit. I think that a new trial should have been granted. In my opinion the judgment should be reversed..
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 15, 1949. Wood, J., voted for a rehearing. Appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 15, 1949. Carter, J., and Traynor, J., voted for a hearing.