209 N.E.2d 906 (Ind.App. 1965), 20181, Hendrix v. Harbelis

Docket Nº20181.
Citation209 N.E.2d 906
Party NameThomas HENDRIX, Appellant, v. Peter HARBELIS, Appellee.
Case DateSeptember 09, 1965
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 906

209 N.E.2d 906 (Ind.App. 1965)

Thomas HENDRIX, Appellant,

v.

Peter HARBELIS, Appellee.

No. 20181.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

September 9, 1965

Rehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1965.

Page 907

Fred M. Stults, Jr., Gary, for appellant.

Barce, Barce & Vann, Kentland, Chris J. Pappas, Gary, for appellee.

CARSON, Judge.

This action was commenced in the Newton Circuit Court by the plaintiff-appellee to recover damages for personal injuries which he allegedly sustained while crossing an intersection in Gary, Indiana.

The complaint alleged negligence on the part of the appellant as the proximate cause of the appellee's injuries. An answer in denial was filed by the appellant and the issues were formed thereon. Trial was by jury. At the close of appellee's evidence the appellant filed a written motion for a directed verdict which motion was overruled. Appellant renewed his motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence which motion was subsequently overruled. The appellant tendered written interrogatories to be answered by the jury, some of which were submitted. The jury returned answers to the interrogatories and a verdict for the appellee in the sum of $10,000.00. Appellant filed a motion for judgment on the interrogatories which motion was overruled and judgment was entered for the appellee in accordance with the general verdict. Appellant then filed a motion for new trial which motion was overruled.

The specifications urged in appellant's motion for new trial are as follows:

1. The verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

2. The verdict of the jury is contrary to law.

3. The damages assessed by the jury are excessive.

4. Error of law occurring at the trial in each of the following particulars * * * (thereafter setting out alleged errors in the admission of certain evidence, refusal by the court to give certain tendered instructions of appellant; the giving of certain instructions of the appellee; and the refusal to submit certain interrogatories of appellant to the jury).

The assignment of errors relied upon for the reversal by the appellant towards three causes, that:

1. The court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a directed verdict at the end of plaintiff's evidence.

2. The court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a directed verdict at the end...

To continue reading

Request your trial