Court Opinion

ID: 9550585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:37:44.355758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:54.457698
License: Public Domain

Wedell, J.
(dissenting in part): In the light of the entire record, including the particular issues raised on appeal, I prefer to leave the question whether there shall be a new trial generally or only on the issue of damages to be decided in the first instance by the trial court. Neither of the parties has ever been heard on that question. It was not presented to the trial court and is not mentioned by either of them in this court.
I have noted cases cited in the court’s opinion which may be found in Carlgren v. Saindon, 129 Kan. 475, 283 Pac. 620. I do not disagree with the decision in the Carlgren case from which the prevailing opinion quotes. In that case, however, unlike the instant one, the parties were not deprived of their right to be heard on the question. It had been presented to the trial court and its ruling was properly here for review.
By reason of a trial court’s familiarity with all aspects of the litigation and its advantage over this court in determining the fairness of an order granting or denying a motion for a retrial on the single issue of damages, we frequently have said the ruling rests in the exercise of the trial court’s sound judicial discretion and its ruling *640will not be disturbed absent abuse of such discretion. A few of our decisions are Brokmann v. Lawson, 117 Kan. 386, 388, 232 Pac. 601; Friesen v. Western Grain Dealers Ins. Co., 119 Kan. 513, 516, 240 Pac. 414; Paul v. Western Distributing Co., 142 Kan. 816, 52 P. 2d 379; Posey v. Johnson, 145 Kan. 742, 743, 67 P. 2d 598.
I do not want to deprive the parties of a right to be heard on the subject and prefer not to deny the trial court an opportunity to rule on the question.
I, therefore, would limit our review to the questions presented on appeal. Of course, if this court believes it might be proper to limit the issues on retrial to the single question of damages I know of no sound reason why it should not frankly state the trial court has power to determine that question, if, and when, it is properly presented to it. This would not deprive the parties of a right to be heard and would permit the district court to exercise its customary discretionary power in the premises in harmony with the provisions of G. S. 1949, 60-3004.