Court Opinion

ID: 9684149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:48:03.58874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:53.288241
License: Public Domain

CARVER, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The trial jury found that White’s demands, in its original *473petition and in its first amended original petition, were not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid such error.
The evidence of Phyllis DeWeirdt, retail collection manager of White’s regional office, described a system of White’s which avoided such an error for many years as well as described this first failure of the system through human error which bore no marks of being anything but unintentional. Charles Cunningham, former counsel in the case but who had withdrawn, further testified that the error was unintentional on his part and was the result of bona fide error on his part, aside from White. There was no direct evidence contradicting these witnesses. The jury was entitled, and did, believe them.
I decline to constitute myself, or this court, as an appellate jury claiming a greater perception than the trial jury as to the “intentions” of a litigant or as to the “bona fide” character of a litigant’s error in pleadings. I would affirm on the jury’s finding.