Court Opinion

ID: 9520963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:54:08.471275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:23.116306
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring in result.
The trial marked by the approach of the opinion of the Court of Appeals is the correct one. It enhances the values and purposes sought to be achieved by the pre-trial conference required under Trial Rule 16, and the expenditure of time and effort which it contemplates. The conference and its formal product, the pre-trial order, bring the case into focus and render it susceptible of trial according to legal principles. Here, the defendants Faweett and *82Eagles said nothing regarding their view of the issues of fact. The defendant VFW made only the vague statement regarding an intervening cause, which most strongly suggested the exercise of the will by Faw-cett when he imbibed in the drinks or the purchase by others of the drinks for him. The next case we see may involve equally vague statements by a plaintiff. If there is time in our state judicial process for the pre-trial conference, and if it is to be maintained, then it should be done fully and correctly. A trial today upon the vague, general pleadings permitted by our rules, with no specific pretrial order as guidance, is nothing but a three ring circus.