Court Opinion

ID: 9678550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:22:59.487344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:05.628614
License: Public Domain

Garrett, J.
(dissenting) — I respectfully dissent. An examination of the record discloses a considerable amount of definite and positive testimony sustaining the allegations of plaintiff’s petition.
The majority opinion chooses to ignore this evidence and holds as a matter of law that it is not entitled to consideration by the jury. Plaintiff’s testimony and that of his witnesses should not be disregarded and held for naught. We set out a part of the record.
*791Plaintiff testified:
“Q. Is this the signature of your brother that is contained on Exhibit ‘1.1’? A. No.”
The date of the alleged will was March 13, 1958.
“Q. Mr. Drosos, describe what you saw when you saw your brother on the 11th day of March, 1958, describe him to the jury and the court, what he looked like? A. Is dead. Just exactly dead. Was like this, that’s all. I touched his hand a little bit. He is dead.”
The plaintiff took the hand of the deceased on the 11th day of March, 1958. He raised the hand.
“Q. And he acted like he was dead? A. He is dead. He is dead. Q. Did he respond to touching his hand in any way? A. I touched it. So his wife who was there, she said, don’t bother him. He is gone. I told her, give him something to eat. Q. You said to Mrs. Jennie Drosos, give him something to eat ? A. And she said, no. Nothing today. He didn’t eat nothing today and yesterday neither.
“From the 11th of March, 1958, until the 19th day of March, 1958, the plaintiff saw the deceased once and sometimes two times a day. Sometimes in the evening. The plaintiff never heard the deceased utter a word from the 11th day of March, 1958, to the 19th day of March, 1958. He was in his room every day and there was no difference in his condition on the 13th day of March. .Just a dead man. He saw him on the 14th day of March, and every day until the 19th. * * * During that time he never heard him say anything. * * * During this period of time there was no movement. The deceased never turned his head.”
Mary J. Mehess testified:
“She saw the deceased seven days before the 19th of March, 1958. She stated that the deceased was in a state of paralysis. He couldn’t speak. He couldn’t look. She touched his hand, he was very cold. His eyes were very glassy and he just stared. She couldn’t tell if he were looking at her or just looking into space. Mr. and Mrs. Prewitt and Mr. and Mrs. Drosos were in the room at that time.”
*792Alex Kazos (restaurateur in Sioux City) testified:
“He saw the deceased March 12, 1958. (He was in the hospital) The witness did not talk to the deceased at that time. The reason he knew it was the 12th of March was because Harry Stetson was leaving for Greece, and Harry Stetson wanted the witness to take him up and bid the deceased goodbye.
“Q. Bill was dying when you were there, you knew that? A. If he was dying? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. Mr. Kazos, you stated Mrs. Drosos attempted to wake up the deceased when you and Mr. Stetson came in the room? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did she do? A. She called him. He couldn’t even open his eyes.”
Sophie Katsis testified along the same line. She visited the deceased on the 13th. He was very sick and could not say anything to her.
This court has, times without number, required the submission to the jury of cases based upon much less evidence. In Wiese v. Hoffman, 249 Iowa 416, 421, 86 N.W.2d 861, 865, we said: “In ruling upon motions for directed verdict the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff.”
In Knaus Truck Lines v. Commercial Freight Lines, 238 Iowa 1356, 1360, 29 N.W.2d 204, 207, we said, through Garfield, J., “Of course, it is our duty to view the evidence in the. light most favorable to plaintiffs and give them the benefit of all permissible inferences. When this is done, we think reasonable minds might reach different conclusions * # * and therefore it should have been submitted to the jury.”
In Roller v. Independent Silo Co., 242 Iowa 1277, 1282, 49 ,N.W.2d 838, 841, this court said: “When different persons might draw different conclusions from the record a fact question is generated and it is the duty of the court to submit such matter to the jury.”
This rule is so elementary that further citations of authorities is unnecessary.
I would reverse.