Court Opinion

ID: 9826425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:55:35.97867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:03.369897
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Marion :
I concur in the view that there was reversible error in the charge as imputed by appellant’s first assignment of error. I am not prepared to agree that the verdict should have been directed for defendant.
Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary:
This is an action for damages, alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff through the wrongful acts of the defendant. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $500, and the defendant *209appealed upon exceptions, which will be reported together with the complaint and answer.
First, Second and Third Exceptions. The testimony as to the questions of fact mentioned in these exceptions was susceptible of more than one inference; therefore they were properly submitted to the jury.
Fourth Exception. The grounds of the motion for a directed verdict were as follows:
(1) “Because there is no testimony to show that the delay of the train on which the plaintiff was a passenger was due to negligence of defendant.” ,
(2) “Because all the testimony shows that the delay of the train on which plaintiff was a passenger was due to waiting on connections and not to negligence.”
(3) '“Because it appears from all the testimony that the information furnished the plaintiff by the conductor as to the probability of missing the Conway connection was furnished in good faith, in the exercise of his best judgment based upon the conditions existing at the time, and because defendant should not be held liable because, due to subsequent occurrences, conditions were changed to such an extent that the connection was made.”
(4) “Because it appears that the injury suffered by plaintiff, if any, was due, not to negligence of the defendant, but to an intervening cause, to wit: plaintiff’s own act in attempting to drive through the country on a bitterly cold day, instead of going to his destination by rail.”
If the plaintiff had relied, alone, on the alleged negligence of the defendant in causing him to drive through the country on a bitterly cold day, as alleged in paragraph 7 of the complaint, and had failed to prove such allegations, a motion for the direction of a verdict would have been proper. But there are other acts of neglignece, alleged in the complaint, which, if sustained by the testimony, entitled the plaintiff to damages.
*210Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Twelth, and Thirteenth Exceptions. On hearing the motion to settle the case, his Honor, the Circuit Judge thus explained the spirit in which he used the language assigned as error:
“Practically all of defendant’s exceptions seem predicated on assumed prejudice bn the part of the Court to the defendant. This the Court positively and emphatically denies. * * * Certainly, the weariness of these trials may be sometimes lighted by a little ‘badinage’ and ‘persiflage,’ and excuses put forth for a necessarily prosy charge, and some explanation given the jury for why the charge must be halting.”
Tt is incumbent on the appellant, not only to satisfy this Court that there was error, but also that it was prejudicial to the lights of the appellant. The defendant’s attorneys have failed to satisfy us of such fact.
•Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Exceptions. Rule 5, Section 6, of the Supreme Court, contains the following provision:
“Each exception must contain within itself a complete assignment of error, and a mere reference therein to any other exception then or previously taken, or request to charge, will not be considered.”
There was a failure to comply with the requirements of said rule, and these exceptions will not be considered.
(There is an appendix to the record herein, which contains a copy of the order of his Honor, the presiding Judge, settling the case, together with the defendant’s notice of appeal therefrom and exceptions. They, however, will not be considered, as they were not argued.)
Mr. Justice Watts concurs.