Court Opinion

ID: 9715719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:12:51.786286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:37.567884
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Sullivan, P. J.
I concede that the “any evidence” rule espoused by the majority is much more easily applied at the trial level with reference to directed verdicts in that the quantum required to meet the test is easily measured, and although the rigidity of that rule points up the ethereal subjectivity of a “substantial evidence” test, which can vary unpredictably from judge to judge, I nevertheless feel that a trial judge should and must direct a verdict if, as a matter of law, the evidence then of record would not support a contrary verdict.
Evidence sufficient to submit a cause to the jury must necessarily be sufficient to support a verdict. Underwood v. Ferguson (1956), 126 Ind. App. 643, 133 N. E. 2d 573. Conversely, evidence which would not be sufficient to support a verdict should not be held sufficient to permit submission of the cause to the jury for possible rendition of a verdict which would be clearly erroneous, i.e., not supported by substantial evidence.
In Kleinschmidt v. Clark, Admx. (1968), 143 Ind. App. 99, 104, 238 N. E. 2d 473, this court, speaking through Judge Smith, stated:
“In the case of Burke v. Burke (1963), 135 Ind. App. 235, 191 N. E. 2d 530, and cases cited therein, our court held in substance that the material allegations of a complaint sounding in tort and based on specific acts of negligence essential to recovery are required to be supported by sub*188stantial evidence as differentiated from a mere scintilla of evidence. In this case, the trial court sustained a motion for a directed verdict and the question on appeal was whether there was substantial evidence which required the submission of the case to the jury.”
It, therefore, clearly appears that Indiana, as opposed to states such as South Carolina, does not follow a “scintilla” rule.1
The majority here would at first blush appear to be in agreement with the Kleinschmidt statement, for my brothers, citing Hollowell et al. v. Greenfield by Next Friend (1966), 142 Ind. App. 344, 353, 216 N. E. 2d 537, say: “To require an issue to be submitted to the jury, there must be something more than a mere scintilla of evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) The statement made by the majority herein appears in the Hollowell opinion, interestingly also written by Judge Smith. Surprisingly, however, Judge Smith, notwithstanding his very lucid and unambiguous statement in the Kleinschmidt case, supra, proceeded in fact to apply a scintilla doctrine to the evidence of record in the Hollowell case. At best, the language in Hollowell appears to define “scintilla” as “none” and “more than a mere scintilla” as “any.” This conclusion is drawn from a reading of the complete statement made in Hollowell as follows:
“However, to require an issue to be submitted to the jury there must be something more than a mere scintilla of evidence and a party is not entitled to go to the jury on a fact where there is no evidence on which the jury can in any justifiable view find for the party producing it.” 142 Ind. App. 344, 353-354 (Emphasis supplied)
It is my belief that the majority in the case before us, like the court in Hollowell, acknowledges the inapplicability of the scintilla doctrine, yet like the court in Hollowell mistakenly *189utilizes the scintilla rule in reviewing the verdict directed below. I say “mistakenly” for the reason that the “any evidence” rule herein applied is in fact a scintilla rule, as demonstrated by Wadkins’ Adm’x v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. (1956 Ky.), 298 S. W. 2d 7, 9:
“Clearly and expressly the Nugent case abolished what was known as the ‘scintilla’ rule, which in substance was that any evidence supporting the plaintiff’s cause required submission to the jury.”
The Indiana law as I understand it is more in keeping with that stated in McVay v. American Radiator & Standard S. Corporation (W.D. Pa. 1941), 1 F. R. D. 677, 678, quoting from Gunning v. Cooley (1930), 281 U. S. 90, 94:
“ ‘A mere scintilla of evidence is not enough to require the submission of an issue to the jury. The decisions establish a more reasonable rule “that in every case, before the evidence is left to the jury, there is a preliminary question for the judge, not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.” ’ ”
The rule is similarly stated in Holstein v. Benedict (1915), 22 Haw. 441, 445:
“To amount to more than a mere scintilla the evidence must be of a character sufficiently substantial, in view of all the circumstances of the case, to warrant the jury, as triers of the facts, in finding from it the fact to establish which the evidence was introduced.”
In short, the word most accurately describing that evidence which is “more than a mere scintilla,” is “substantial.” United States v. Krumsiek (1st Cir. 1940), 111 F. 2d 74 at 78.
It seems very basic then that since a jury verdict must be supported by substantial evidence of probative value, Kleinschmidt v. Clark, Admx., supra, a directed verdict is not only appropriate but required if there is not substantial evidence on each essential element of plaintiff’s claim. It thus appears *190that the “any evidence” or scintilla rule creates a flagrant, though admittedly workable, inconsistency in the review of evidentiary determinations. I therefore advocate the continuing application of the “substantial evidence” test in examining directed verdicts as set forth in Anderson v. J. C. Penney Co. (1971), 149 Ind. App. 325, 272 N. E. 2d 621, and Szlafrak v. Donaldson (1971), 149 Ind. App. 200, 271 N. E. 2d 170.
In this connection, I am unable to agree with the majority’s supposition that appearance of the word “substantial” in the reported cases has been inadvertent and that the Indiana courts in truth and fact have always applied an “any evidence” test. In Richey v. Sheaks (1967), 141 Ind. App. 423, 435, 228 N. E. 2d 429, this court quoted from Sparks v. Baldwin (1965), 137 Ind. App. 64, 205 N. E. 2d 173, as follows:
“ ‘The law is that “a verdict should be directed where there is a total lack of substantial evidence of probative value, a total lack of evidence not being required.” Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, 1963, Pk. Supp. Sec. 1661, Comment 1.' ”
Aside from my semantic warfare with the majority viewpoint, I also take issue with the result obtained in that opinion. The evidence adduced below and as set forth by the majority here is wholly insufficient to support a verdict for plaintiff. The mere fact that the driver of plaintiff’s vehicle suddenly lost steering control, that the car struck the guard rail and median strip, and that the severed tie rod was found behind the point at which the vehicle came to rest does not in my view permit a reasonable inference that defendant either failed to properly inspect the tie rod assembly, or used inferior metal in manufacturing it, or failed to properly install it. A verdict for plaintiff upon such state of facts would necessarily be premised upon surmise, conjecture and speculation and would therefore be erroneous. Halkias v. Gary National Bank (1968), 142 Ind. App. 329, 234 N. E. 2d 652; *191Hunnicutt v. Boughner (1967), 141 Ind. App. 669, 231 N. E. 2d 159; Haney v. Meyer (1966), 139 Ind. App. 663, 215 N. E. 2d 886. In Foster v. New York Central System (7th Cir. 1968), 402 F. 2d 312, 313, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered the Halkias case, supra, and correctly interpreted Indiana law as follows:
“The courts of Indiana and this Circuit, in interpreting Indiana law, have held that when a plaintiff cannot show the manner in which the accident took place, the unexplained circumstances do not permit the jury to speculate or draw inferences as to the occurrence. The most recent decision of which we are aware is Iwaniuk v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 402 F. 2d 309. In that case, the plaintiff was able to prove only that the decedent was seen walking on an allegedly defective catwalk, and was next seen lying on the ground beneath it. This Court reversed a jury verdict for the plaintiff stating: ‘The total absence of evidence as to the cause of plaintiff’s decedent’s fall compels the conclusion, under the Indiana law, that plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof on the issue of negligence and of proximate cause.’ In holding that the jury must have engaged in speculation and conjecture in determining the manner in which the plaintiff fell, this Court cited United States Steel Corporation v. Cicilian, 133 Ind. App. 249, 180 N. E. 2d 381, 181 N. E. 2d 538 (1962), for the proposition that ‘such “unexplained circumstances” do not permit the drawing of inferences.’
“Also cited in Iwaniuk was Halkias v. Gary National Bank, [142] Ind. App. [329] 1968, 234 N. E. 2d 652, 655 (1968), where the court cited a number of Indiana cases for the proposition that, ‘It is well settled that a decision or finding must be based upon the proven facts and cannot be based upon mere guess, conjecture, surmise, possibility or speculation.’ The Halkias court affirmed the granting of a directed verdict where the plaintiff, who had fallen on ice in front of defendant’s bank, could prove only that there had been ice on the sidewalk and that defendant’s employees had been attempting to remove the ice. Since there were other conditions present which could have led to several equally speculative conclusions, the Court held that ‘[a]ppellant’s cause of action cannot be established by the drawing of such liberal inferences as would be necessary to take the case to the jury.’ 234 N. E. 2d at 655.”
*192The majority herein places great reliance upon International Harvester Co. v. Sharoff (10th Cir. 1953), 202 F. 2d 52, in support of submission of the cause here considered to the jury. The Harvester case, it should be noted, involves an interpretation of Colorado, not Indiana, law. Further, the following recitation from Harvester clearly shows its factual dissimilarity from our circumstance:
“We are also of the view that there was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury on whether the breaking of the parts caused the accident or were the result of the accident. [Plaintiff] relied upon the testimony of its driver of the incident about two miles before the accident when thé truck seemed for an instant to go out of control arid on the fact that the broken part to the housing, which was of considerable size, could not be found at the scene of the accident or within a distance of two miles back of the point of the accident to sustain the burden resting upon it to establish that the defective parts caused the accident. The argument that the temporary raising up of the rear part of the unit was caused by the break and the further point that the broken part of the housing could not be found at the scene of the accident or within two miles thereof would indicate that it broke somewhere else and prior to the accident is not without logic or reason.” 202 F. 2d 52, at 54.
In Harvester, there was no impact or collision, as in our case, which might have accounted for breaking of the part in question.
More importantly, however, Harvester did not involve in any manner a directed verdict motion. In point of truth, the Tenth Circuit equated the evidentiary standard for testing the sufficiency of a jury verdict with the standard for determining whether the issue should be submitted to the jury. This equation is precisely the basis of my dissent and as enunciated in Underwood v. Ferguson, supra.
From the foregoing, I can only conclude that under Indiana law it was incumbent upon the court below to direct a verdict in favor of defendant. I would affirm.
Note. — Reported in 275 N. E. 2d 849.

. “Under the scintilla rule which prevails in South Carolina, if there is a scintilla of evidence, which is any material evidence that, if true, would tend to establish the issue in the mind of a reasonable juror, the case should be submitted to the jury for its determination.” Scott v. Meek (1956), 230 So. C. 310, 95 S.E. 2d 619, 621. (Emphasis supplied)