Court Opinion

ID: 9671878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:44:20.844946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:12.685679
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice, dissenting. This case was tried before the Circuit Judge without a jury; and the law is well established that in such a situation the findings of the Court have the force and effect of a jury verdict. It is true that the case was submitted on an agreed statement of facts; but, even so, certain inferences and conclusions had to be drawn from such facts; and it is the province of the jury (the Circuit Judge in this case) to draw such inferences and conclusions; and when so drawn these are binding. The factual issue for determination was whether Mr. Walden died directly because of the collision of his car with the. water, or whether he died by reason of an intervening efficient cause, i.e., the taking of the wrong direction when he left the car. The Trial Judge found the latter to be true. It was for the Trial Judge to draw the inferences and conclusions from the facts; and under our system we should affirm his findings. In reversing the Circuit Court judgment, this Court is saying, as a matter of law, that whenever a car goes into the water and the person leaving the car drowns, then the drowning is a part of the collision with the water, notwithstanding the fact that there might have been an intervening efficient cause. In reversing the judgment of the Circuit Court the Supreme Court is sitting as an appellate jury in this case; and I think we should not so constitute ourselves. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.