Court Opinion

ID: 9619747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:32:27.801965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:43.929357
License: Public Domain

Thiele, J.,
(concurring specially in the result.)
I think the above appeal should be determined on a different basis than is followed in the foregoing opinion, but shall state my views rather summarily.
I am of the opinion that the answer to the first special question that the collision was an accident means just what it says and cannot be explained away in the manner set forth in the court’s opinion. Under that one answer the defendant was freed from liability. Answers to other special questions, however, convict the defendant of actionable negligence. The result is that the answers to the special questions are inconsistent with each other, and cannot be reconciled with each other, and, of course, they cannot be reconciled with the general verdict. In siich case the rule stated in McCoy v. Weber, 168 Kan. 241, 212 P. 2d 281, applies. It is:
“Consistent special findings control the general verdict when contrary thereto but when they are inconsistent with one another — some showing a right to a verdict and others showing the contrary — the case is left in the condition of really being undecided and a new trial should be granted.” (Syl. ¶ 2.)
*49And see the later case of In re Estate of Erwin, 170 Kan. 728, 738, 228 P. 2d 739, and cases cited therein for other statements of the rule.
In the instant case, however, although the notice of appeal covered a ruling on defendant’s motion for a new trial, the abstracts do not include such a motion, and no error on the ruling is specified as error. We are left in the same position as though there had been no motion for a new trial. As was said in the concluding paragraphs of McCoy v. Weber, supra:
“Obviously the result in the instant case is not a satisfactory one. These findings being inconsistent with one another they leave the case in a condition of being really undecided. Under such circumstances a new trial should have been granted. (Willis v. Skinner, supra.) The trial court, however, did not grant a new trial on its own motion. Appellants for reasons they deem valid and concerning which we, of course, express no views, did not request a new trial. Appellants concede the sole issue they bring here is whether the trial court erred in overruling their motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. We think it did not.
“The judgment is affirmed.” (1. c. 244.)
The result here, as in the above case, is that the judgment must be affirmed.
Wedell and Price, JJ., join in the foregoing concurring opinion.