390 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1979), 1-278A43, Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Parks

Docket Nº:1-278A43.
Citation:390 N.E.2d 1073, 181 Ind.App. 148
Party Name:ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Robert L. Waltrip, Appellants-Defendants, v. Bertha Fay PARKS, Jessie L. Parks, Appellees-Plaintiffs.
Case Date:June 25, 1979
Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Page 1073

390 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1979)

181 Ind.App. 148

ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Robert L. Waltrip,

Appellants-Defendants,

v.

Bertha Fay PARKS, Jessie L. Parks, Appellees-Plaintiffs.

No. 1-278A43.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.

June 25, 1979

Page 1074

Robert H. Hahn, George A. Porch, Evansville, for appellant-defendant Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company; Bamberger, Foreman, Oswald & Hahn, Evansville, of counsel.

Glenn A. Grampp, James D. Lopp, Sr., James D. Lopp, Jr., Evansville, for appellees-plaintiffs; Lopp, Lopp & Grampp, Evansville, of counsel.

LYBROOK, Judge.

In an action brought by Bertha Fay and Jessie L. Parks, husband and wife, against the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. and its engineer Robert L. Waltrip, judgment was entered on a jury verdict as follows: Bertha was to recover $30,000 for her personal injuries from [181 Ind.App. 149] Illinois Central Gulf but take nothing from Waltrip; Jessie was to take nothing for loss of his wife's services and consortium from either defendant.

The Parks' complaint alleged that Illinois Central Gulf and Waltrip negligently operated a train and that this negligence proximately caused the collision between the Parks' car and an Illinois Central Gulf train which resulted in Bertha's personal injuries and Jessie's loss of Bertha's services and consortium.

Illinois Central Gulf appeals the judgment in favor of Bertha, raising three issues for review:

(1) Whether the judgment is contrary to the law and the evidence in that Bertha was contributorily negligent as a matter of law;

(2) Whether the trial court committed reversible error in giving Court's Instruction No. 5 F; and

(3) Whether the trial court committed reversible error in giving Plaintiffs' Instruction No. 1.

We affirm.

Issue I.

Illinois Central Gulf's first argument is based on the position that the jury verdict and judgment thereon in favor of Bertha are inconsistent with the verdict and judgment thereon against Jessie and are therefore contrary to law. The railroad cites no authority for this position and thus could be considered to have waived it under Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7). We prefer, however, to address the contention on its merits.

Under the law, a verdict may be bad and may be found not to support a judgment if it is legally or logically inconsistent, contradictory or repugnant, 28 I.L.E. Trials § 316 (1960); 89 C.J.S. Trial §§ 496 and 500 (1955); Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc. v. Fields, (1970) 254 Ind. 219, 259 N.E.2d 651, but the court indulges every reasonable presumption in favor of the legality of jury verdicts. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., supra; Central Union Telephone Co. v. Fehring, (1896) 146 Ind. 189, 45 N.E. 64.

[181 Ind.App. 150] The railroad's argument starts with the basic premise that the form and substance of the jury verdict establish that Jessie's claim for damages was rejected by the jury because the jury found him contributorily negligent. Building on this

Page 1075

premise, the railroad argues that Bertha is contributorily negligent as a matter of law under one of two theories: 1) that the contributory negligence of a vehicle's operator is imputed to the vehicle owner present in the vehicle; or 2) that the evidence in relation to Jessie is identical to the evidence in relation to Bertha, requiring the jury to find her contributorily negligent also. Illinois Central Gulf's basic premise fails and with it the rest of its argument.

The railroad contends that the $30,000 verdict against the railroad and in favor of Bertha shows that the jury necessarily found that the railroad was negligent and that this negligence...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
15 practice notes
  • 417 N.E.2d 917 (Ind.App. 3 Dist. 1981), 3-779A210, Barrow v. Talbott
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 25 Febrero 1981
    ...to do so. Conder v. Hull Lift Truck, Inc. (1980), Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d 538; Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Parks (1979), Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 1073. Moreover, the term "prima facie" is undoubtedly a technical term that may be misunderstood by a jury since it is often used, even amon......
  • 411 N.E.2d 638 (Ind.App. 4 Dist. 1980), 3-1279A355, Smith v. Insurance Co. of North America
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 21 Octubre 1980
    ...they must render a verdict in accordance therewith for the plaintiff or defendant. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. v. Parks, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 1073. Instructing the jury they could infer the defendant was negligent was not a mandate to render a verdict for the plaintiff. Clearly, negli......
  • 405 N.E.2d 591 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1980), 1-1079A276, Wiles v. Mahan
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 16 Junio 1980
    ...given as a whole in determining whether they were adequate. See Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. Parks, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 1073, 1077. Perry v. Goss, (1970) 253 Ind. 603, 605, 255 N.E.2d 923, 925, states: Instructions which are mandatory in character, which attempt to set up a......
  • 443 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1983), 1-881A250, Plan-Tec, Inc. v. Wiggins
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 11 Enero 1983
    ...reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of the jury's verdict. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. Parks, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 1073, 1074, trans. denied. Page 1218 Where the evidence is susceptible to reasonably differing interpretations, the jury's verdict will not be d......
  • Free signup to view additional results
15 cases
  • 417 N.E.2d 917 (Ind.App. 3 Dist. 1981), 3-779A210, Barrow v. Talbott
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 25 Febrero 1981
    ...to do so. Conder v. Hull Lift Truck, Inc. (1980), Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d 538; Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Parks (1979), Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 1073. Moreover, the term "prima facie" is undoubtedly a technical term that may be misunderstood by a jury since it is often used, even amon......
  • 411 N.E.2d 638 (Ind.App. 4 Dist. 1980), 3-1279A355, Smith v. Insurance Co. of North America
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 21 Octubre 1980
    ...they must render a verdict in accordance therewith for the plaintiff or defendant. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. v. Parks, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 1073. Instructing the jury they could infer the defendant was negligent was not a mandate to render a verdict for the plaintiff. Clearly, negli......
  • 405 N.E.2d 591 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1980), 1-1079A276, Wiles v. Mahan
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 16 Junio 1980
    ...given as a whole in determining whether they were adequate. See Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. Parks, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 1073, 1077. Perry v. Goss, (1970) 253 Ind. 603, 605, 255 N.E.2d 923, 925, states: Instructions which are mandatory in character, which attempt to set up a......
  • 443 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1983), 1-881A250, Plan-Tec, Inc. v. Wiggins
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 11 Enero 1983
    ...reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of the jury's verdict. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. Parks, (1979) Ind.App., 390 N.E.2d 1073, 1074, trans. denied. Page 1218 Where the evidence is susceptible to reasonably differing interpretations, the jury's verdict will not be d......
  • Free signup to view additional results