Court Opinion

ID: 9861410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:58:15.932063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:25.437453
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
{on motion for rehearing). We acknowledge that our original opinion requires modification in two respects, but we reach no different result.
*100aWe held, in substance, that as a matter of law, defendant had either denied permission to use the particular grinder or had exercised reasonable care to inform plaintiff and his co-workers that it was not safe. This was based upon Mr. Byrne’s testimony, corroborated by Mr. Prasch, that Byrne “said to those present that the wheel would not work, that it was not safe.”
We said:
“Frank Motola, who was also present, testified that he remembered no conversation by Byrne that the grinder would not work with the replacement wheel or that it was not safe. On cross-examination Motola admitted that though he was present when the conversation occurred, that he did not remember any of what had been said.”
The statement just quoted is incomplete. Upon direct examination by plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Motola testified to statements made while Mr. Byrne and Father Wilwers were removing the old wheel and installing the second one on the grinder. He also testified as follows :
“Q. State whether or not at any time Mr. Byrne ever stated anything about the new wheel being unsafe ? A. No. He never mentioned anything.
“Q. State whether or not at any time Mr. Byrne ever mentioned anything about this just being an experiment. A. He never said anything.”
Defendant’s cross-examination brought out no testimony inconsistent with the testimony just quoted.
Mr. Motola was also an impleaded defendant. Upon later direct examination by his own counsel he testified in part:
“Q. Did you hear Mr. Byrne make any statement to Father Wilwers regarding the grinding wheel not fitting or not rotating properly, and therefore, that it should not be used? A. Not that I recall.”
Upon cross-examination by defendant’s counsel he testified in part:
*100b“Q. You recall any of the conversation that was had in the room there? A. No, I don’t.
“Q. There were quite a few things said that you don’t recall? A. Yes.
“Q. And Mr. Byrne said a number of things, and Father Wilwers said a number of things? A. Yes.
“Q. And those things you don’t recall? A. No.”
Had Mr. Motola’s testimony remained unqualified as first given, there would have been a question for the jury to decide whether Byrne did or did not tell Father Wilwers and Motola that the grinder was unsafe. We conclude, however, that Motola’s later testimony that he did not remember wholly destroyed the credibility of his earlier testimony. It follows that the jury verdict favorable to plaintiff was not supported by any credible evidence.
Our original opinion is qualified to conform to this memorandum.
We also said:
“The fact that Father Wilwers was not called upon by Vogt to testify corroborated the testimony given by Byrne and Prasch.”
This was on the theory that it would be more natural for plaintiff to call Father Wilwers than for defendant to do so. Plaintiff was a parishioner of Father Wilwers but was not present at the time of the alleged statements by Byrne. Mr. Byrne had dealt directly with Father Wilwers in the matter of lending the grinder for use by the parishioners and claimed to have made the statement to Father Wilwers. Upon further consideration, we cannot say that it was more natural for plaintiff to call Father Wilwers than for defendant to do so. He was present at least for part of the trial and presumably available if either had called him. Furthermore, since we were concerned only with the question whether any evidence existed which would support the verdict, and not with the *100cweight of the evidence to the contrary, it was immaterial whether there was corroboration for the Byrne and Prasch testimony or not. The statement is withdrawn.