Brunssen v. Parker
| Decision Date | 02 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | 45072. |
| Parties | BRUNSSEN v. PARKER. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Benton County; L. J. Kirkland, Judge.
Action at law for damages from injuries received in automobile accident. Verdict for plaintiff. From order granting new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
In action for injuries sustained in head-on automobile collision occurring at night near crest of a hill county highway, where automobile in which plaintiff was riding was attempting to pass another automobile traveling in same direction and was on left-hand side of highway, setting aside verdict for plaintiff on ground that verdict for plaintiff on ground that verdict was contrary to evidence and granting a new trial was not an abuse of discretion.
Tobin Tobin & Tobin, of Vinton, and Putnam, Putnam, Fillmore & Putnam, of Des Moines, for appellant.
Harold C. Kruse and Nichols, Nichols & Milroy, all of Vinton, for appellee.
Appellant was injured in a head-on collision between an automobile in which he was riding and a car driven by appellee. The accident occurred at night, near the crest of a hill, on a narrow paved country highway. The car in which appellant was riding was then attempting to pass another car, travelling in the same direction, and was on the left-hand side of the highway. Alleging the collision was due to the negligence of appellee, appellant instituted this action at law. The case was tried to a jury, appellee then not being represented by the counsel who now appear for him. The jury returned a verdict in favor of appellant. The trial court set aside the verdict and granted a new trial. This appeal is taken from said order.
Appellee's motion for new trial contained several grounds, one of which was that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. In addition to sustaining the motion generally the court's order contained the following: " In granting the new trial aforesaid the court does not limit itself to the matters set forth in the motion for new trial filed by the defendant herein but the court feels and is persuaded that it cannot give its approval to the verdict returned by the jury herein in view of the entire record in the cause and believes that in furtherance of justice the cause should be retried."
One of the grounds of the motion for new trial was that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The motion was sustained generally. The evidence was in serious conflict. These elements bring this case squarely within the rule established by a long line of decisions that where the evidence is conflicting the order of a trial court granting a new trial upon the ground that the verdict is contrary to the evidence will not be reversed unless it...
To continue reading
Request your trial