Court Opinion

ID: 9695420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:19:09.82074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:12.198022
License: Public Domain

Thornton, J.
(concurring specially) — In this ease" the plaintiff-appellant did invoke the broad inherent power of the-*792court to grant a new trial in the interest of substantial justice. It should be pointed out such power referred to in rule 344(f) 3, Rules of Civil Procedure, is not the same as the power to grant a new trial under rule 244, Rules of Civil Procedure.
In her motion for a new trial plaintiff points particularly to instruction No. 8. It is erroneous substantially as pointed out in the majority opinion. That alone is sufficient to sustain the grant of a new trial. Instruction No. 6 is also in error and the specification of negligence on following too closely should not have been submitted as there was insufficient evidence to sustain a finding thereon.
I disagree with that part of Division I that reads as follows, “It does not clearly appear it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to feel the verdict was contrary to the evidence, or was not sustained by sufficient evidence, a ground for new trial by statute or rule for over 105 years. See rule 244(f), * * "What rule 244(f), Rules of Civil Procedure, states is, “That the verdict, report or decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence, or is contrary to law;”.
We should remember we are considering a defendant’s verdict. The burden of proof is on plaintiff. In this case, she must prove an alleged act of negligence was a proximate cause of the damage and injury. From the evidence produced by plaintiff, that of Mr. and Mrs. Gates in the southbound car in the west lane, the jury could find the Morgan car that turned right off of highway 69 into the gravel' road did not give a signal for the right turn. Record, page 57, lines 25, 26 ; Record, page 52, lines 4-11; Record, page 61, lines 8-16; and Record, page 63, line 34 to page 64, line 1. This caused plaintiff’s decedent to brake his car suddenly to avoid the Morgan car. Record, page 52, lines 32, 33; Record, page 58, line 1; and Record, page 59, lines 18, 19 and 25-27.
The jury could also find the Morgan car had not completed the turn and was not off the pavement at the time of collision. Record, page 54, lines 1, 2; page 60, lines 33, 34; and page 61, line 1.
From this the jury could properly find the proximate cause of the accident was the failure of the Morgan car to signal for *793the right turn, thus causing decedent to brake his car suddenly and pull to the left, that such was the cause of the accident, not defendant striking decedent’s car from the rear.
It should be remembered the distance from the top of the hill south of the intersection was 600 feet from the intersection, the length of two normal city blocks, and the speed limit on the highway 70 miles per hour.
ThompsoN and Stuart, JJ., join in this special concurrence.