Clark v. Rohr
Decision Date | 14 January 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 18300,18300 |
Parties | CLARK v. ROHR. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Isadore E. Levine and Robert S. Gettinger, LaPorte, for appellant.
Paul E. Reed, Knox, Leo J. Clifford, Valparaiso, for appellee.
Appellee brought this action against appellant for damages for the wrongful death of her decedent arising out of an automobile accident on U. S. Highway No. 35 in Starke County, at a point where that road intersects with a county highway about seven miles north of Knox, Indiana. Trial to a jury resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee for $8,000. Judgment accordingly.
The sole assignment of error here is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial. In view of the conclusion we have reached, it is necessary for us to consider only Subdivision (J) of Specification Four of that motion, which asserts the trial court erred in giving to the jury appellee's tendered instruction No. 4. This instruction is as follows:
'I instruct you that if you find from the evidence that the defendant or any person for whose acts he was legally responsible was driving the car of Charles Gaw while under the influence of intoxicating liquor constituted negligence.' (Our emphasis).
Appellant's objection to this instruction is as follows:
The record herein discloses that appellee's decedent was driving south on U. S. Highway No. 35 when his car was struck by the automobile which appellant was driving in a westerly direction across the intersection of the aforementioned county highway. There was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether appellant or one Charles Gaw was driving at the time of the collision. However, the jury, in answer to interrogatories, found that appellant was the driver and that Gaw was not.
A most careful examination of the record discloses there is not a scintilla of evidence from which it could be found or reasonably inferred that appellant, at the time of the accident, was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
In the case of Hayes Freight Lines,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pardue v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Indiana
...proper instructions could have been different. Neese v. Boatright, (1954) 124 Ind.App. 680, 118 N.E.2d 510; Clark v. Rohr, Administratrix, (1953) 123 Ind.App. 209, 109 N.E.2d 727; Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. v. DeArk, Administratrix, (1950) 120 Ind.App. 353, 92 N.E.2d 723. If th......
-
Garatoni v. Teegarden
...332, 133 N.E.2d 72; Wylie v. Myers, Ind.1958, 150 N.E.2d 887; Able v. Bane, 1953, 123 Ind.App. 585, 110 N.E.2d 306; Clark v. Rohr, 1953, 123 Ind.App. 209, 109 N.E.2d 727; Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. v. Alexander, 1955, 126 Ind.App. 75, 125 N.E.2d Appellee's Instructions Nos. 3 a......
-
Gergely v. Moore
...Ind.App. 526, 531, 75 N.E.2d 194; Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk, 1950, 120 Ind.App. 353, 360, 92 N.E.2d 723; Clark v. Rohr, 1953, 123 Ind.App. 209, 109 N.E.2d 727; Neese v. Boatright, 1954, Ind.App., 118 N.E.2d 510; Flanagan, Wiltrout & Hamilton's Indiana Trial and Appellate Practi......