Court Opinion

ID: 9630149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:02:39.265994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:32.406588
License: Public Domain

Pkoctok, J.
(dissenting). I agree with the views of Justice Hehek that the trial judge erred in withdrawing thé issue of the defendants’ liability from the jury’s consideration. Under the facts as outlined by Justice Hehek, the issues of negligence and proximate cause as to the collision were for the jury. My conclusion is somewhat buttressed by the fact that plaintiff’s counsel, who cannot be said to be neutral, made no motion for a direction of verdict on *576the issue of liability at the completion of the evidence. It was after the summations of counsel for the parties that the trial judge of his own volition instructed the jury that they were bound to find for the plaintiff on the question of defendants’ liability. This action was most unusual, indeed it is unique in my experience. The trial judge was probably prompted in his action by the statement of defendants’ counsel in his summation that “he could not find fault with the jury if it found a verdict for plaintiff on the question of negligence.” But it is obvious that this was not a concession of liability as a matter of law.
For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Waoi-ieneeld, Jacobs and Prancis—4.
For reversal—Justices Heher, Burling and Proctor—3.