Brayfield v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 18 August 1965 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 65-26 |
| Citation | 62 Ill.App.2d 59,210 N.E.2d 28 |
| Parties | Noel BRAYFIELD and George Lovelady, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joe P. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Jay B. Stringer, Mt. Vernon, for appellant.
Elmer Jenkins, Benton, for appellees.
Joe Johnson, defendant, appeals from adverse judgments entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, Noel Brayfield for personal injuries, and George Lovelady for property damage.
On May 24, 1961 at about 6:00 p. m., the defendant-appellant was driving his flat bed truck north on Illinois Route 37 just outside the city limits of Benton, Illinois. He intended to turn left onto Petroff Road where it intersected Route 37. Plaintiff, Noel Brayfield, was also proceeding north on Route 37 not for behind appellant in a 3 1/2 ton truck owned by his employer and co-plaintiff, George Lovelady. Mr. and Mrs. Charles Gibson were following immediately behind plaintiff and defendant.
Defendant, who contends that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence, testified that he was traveling at about twenty miles per hour; that he turned his left turn signal on 400 feet south of the intersection of Route 37 and Petroff Road where he intended to turn left, i. e., west, onto Petroff Road; That he did not hear a horn; that the plaintiff ran into the rear of his truck while he was still in the east or right hand lane and while he was fifty-two feet south of the intersection. Harry Gershbacher, who was riding with the defendant, testified that the defendant turned his left turn signal on one hundred and fifty feet south of the intersection; that the plaintiff struck defendant's truck while it was fifty feet south of the intersection and still in the east or right hand lane; and that defendant was traveling about twenty-five miles per hour when he was hit by the plaintiff. Both Johnson and Gershbacher testified that the plaintiff said his brakes failed.
Plaintiff, Noel Brayfield, testified that the defendant did not have his turn signal on when he pulled out into the left lane and began to pass defendant; that when his truck reached a point approximately even with the rear of defendant's truck, the defendant suddenly began to turn left and only then flashed his left turn signal; that in attempting to avoid running into defendant, he applied his brakes and turned to the right; that in so doing he first went off onto the right shoulder of the road but then swerved back onto the highway and into the rear of defendant's truck and was thrown through the windshield onto the pavement.
The testimony of plaintiff was corroborated by that of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Gibson who were not acquainted with any of the parties to this lawsuit. They both testified that they were following the plaintiff's truck when it attempted to pass the truck being driven by defendant; that after the front of Brayfield's truck passed the left rear of the Johnson truck, Johnson commenced turning to the left and then turned his left turn blinker on; that Brayfield then hit his brakes and his truck swerved to the right and back to the left and as he swerved back to the left his truck bed caught the right rear end of the Johnson truck; that the Brayfield truck then turned sideways and overturned, throwing Brayfield out of his truck.
A court of review can set aside a verdict as being against the manifest weight of the evidence only when it is obvious or clearly evident that the jurors have arrived at an incorrect result. Romines v. Illinois Motor Freight, 21 Ill.App.2d 380, 158 N.E.2d 97 (1959). It is for the jury alone to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence on controverted questions of fact. A verdict based on conflicting evidence and approved by the trial judge should not be disturbed on appeal unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; that is, an opposite conclusion must be clearly evident. Ritter v. Hatteberg, 14 Ill.App.2d 548, 145 N.E.2d 119 (1957). Manifest means clearly evident, clear, plain, indisputable. Schneiderman v. Interstate Transit Lines, Inc., 331 Ill.App. 143, 72 N.E.2d 705 (1947). It is for the jury to decide the credibility of the witnesses, and here they have decided to believe the plaintiff and the two disinterested witnesses rather than the defendant. Under such circumstances we cannot supplant our judgment for that of the jurors who saw and heard the witnesses.
Appellant next contends that reversible error was committed when the trial judge refused to grant a mistrial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lagoni v. Holiday Inn Midway
...children; although irrelevant, such evidence was not unduly emphasized so as to arouse sympathies of the jury); Brayfield v. Johnson (1965), 62 Ill.App.2d 59, 65, 210 N.E.2d 28 (improper reference in closing argument to the fact that a party had a wife and family was not reversible error wh......
-
Cogan v. KAL Leasing, Inc., 4-89-0138
...is inadmissible in personal injury cases. (McCarthy v. Spring Valley Coal Co. (1908), 232 Ill. 473, 83 N.E. 957; Brayfield v. Johnson (1965), 62 Ill.App.2d 59, 210 N.E.2d 28.) However, none of the cases which plaintiff cites in support of this argument requires a conclusion that introductio......
-
Sabo v. T. W. Moore Feed & Grain Co.
...giving to the various witnesses such credence as the jurors determined proper. (Citing cases.)' In Brayfield v. Johnson, 62 Ill.App.2d 59, at page 63, 210 N.E.2d 28, at page 30, this court said: 'A court of review can set aside a verdict as being against the manifest weight of the evidence ......
-
Erlich v. Nyberg, 23904 and 111
...supplant its judgment for that of the trier of fact who saw and heard the witnesses give conflicting testimony (Brayfield v. Johnson (1965), 62 Ill.App.2d 59, 210 N.E.2d 28), unless the finding of fact is clearly wrong (Day v. Day (1961),33 Ill.App.2d 247, 178 N.E.2d 203; see also, 2 Ill.L.......
-
Misconduct
...assessment of trial, and there was no indication that juror improperly commented about case to other jurors. Brayfield v. Johnson , 210 N.E.2d 28, 30 (Ill. App. 1965). New trial was not warranted where two witnesses who were complete strangers to the parties offered rides to four jurors. De......