Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 5515

• Decision Date: 08 January 1982
• Docket Number: No. 5515,5515
• Citation: 638 P.2d 1272
• Parties: CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., a New York corporation, Appellant (Defendant), v. ADMIRAL BEVERAGE CORP., d/b/a Western Canning Corp., Appellee (Plaintiff), v. HAINES TRUCKING COMPANY, a Wyoming Corporation, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 1272

638 P.2d 1272

CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., a New York corporation, Appellant (Defendant), v. ADMIRAL BEVERAGE CORP., d/b/a Western Canning Corp., Appellee (Plaintiff), v. HAINES TRUCKING COMPANY, a Wyoming Corporation, Appellee (Defendant).

No. 5515.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Jan. 8, 1982.

Larry Lawton, Larry Lawton, P. C., Cheyenne, and William R. Shelledy, Jr., Worland, for appellant.

James W. Owens, Murane & Bostwick, Casper, for appellee Admiral Beverage Corp.

Ernest J. Goppert, Jr., and James M. Guill, Goppert, Day & Olson, Cody, for appellee Haines Trucking Co.

Before ROSE, C. J., and RAPER, THOMAS, ROONEY and BROWN, JJ.

ROSE, Chief Justice.

This appeal originates with a jury verdict returned against the appellant, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. The action was instituted by appellee Admiral Beverage Corporation against Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. and appellee Haines Trucking Company for damage caused to a machine purchased by Admiral from Crown Cork & Seal. The jury returned the following answers on the special verdict form:

Judgment was entered on the verdict, and Crown Cork & Seal filed a motion for new trial, alleging that the jury's verdict was not sustained by the evidence and was contrary to law. This motion was denied and appellant raises the following issue for our consideration: Was the jury's verdict so inconsistent as to require the granting of a new trial?

We will affirm the trial court.

FACTS

Crown Cork & Seal is a manufacturer of large, sophisticated machinery and one of the products which it makes and markets is a can-filling machine known as a 72 Flattop. Part of the manufacturing process involves the construction of wooden skids onto which the machine is bolted for shipping and unloading purposes.

The appellee, Admiral Beverage Corporation, engages in the business of bottling and canning soda pop. Admiral ordered a 72 Flattop from Crown Cork & Seal, which was placed on a flatbed and transported to Admiral's plant without incident. Haines Trucking Company, a local moving and unloading firm, was employed to unload the heavy machinery and place it in Admiral's plant.

On the day in question, Haines arrived at Admiral's plant and, upon inspecting the machine, decided to utilize the tail-roll method of unloading. Such a procedure is often utilized by Haines when unloading heavy oil-drilling equipment. This particular filling machine weighed about 16,000 pounds, which is somewhat lighter than other equipment Haines had unloaded by the tail-roll method in the past. While slowly positioning the machine to commence the unloading process, the fastening devices attached to the wooden skids pulled out, causing the machine to fall to the ground. In consequence of this mishap and the attendant damage, the suit resulted in the questioned verdict which awarded damages to Admiral.

Can the Verdict Be Sustained?

Appellant frames the questions for resolution according to its perception that the jury's verdict is inconsistent and therefore must be overturned, and a new trial ordered. We will examine the problem as though appellant was challenging the legal viability of the finding which holds that Haines Trucking was negligent but such negligence was not a proximate cause of the injury.

Were we to construe the issue here as a challenge to the jury's verdict on the grounds of its facial inconsistency, Crown Cork would be precluded from attacking it because appellant did not, immediately upon the jury's return, object to the form of the verdict. Failure to timely object to an inconsistent or irregular verdict was considered fatal in DeWitty v. Decker, Wyo., 383 P.2d 734 (1963). There we said:

" * * * we do not think it harsh or unreasonable to require a litigant, when an opportunity is afforded during the trial, timely to bring a matter such as here to the attention of the trial court in order that it might be corrected, and failing in this that he shall not be heard here to complain. * * * " 383 P.2d at 739, 740.

We also said in DeWitty that a party could not complain about defects or inconsistencies in a verdict through a motion for new trial. 383 P.2d at 739. All of this was reaffirmed in Pure Gas & Chemical Company v. Cook, Wyo., 526 P.2d 986, 988 (1974). Thus, according to these controlling authorities, were we to view the issue as framed by appellant, the failure to object would be tantamount to condoning appellant's failure to timely object to what it perceives to be a facial verdict irregularity. The rules announced in DeWitty do not, however, preclude this appeal because the verdict here does not contain an inconsistency. We will therefore consider appellant's claim as one involving a question which asks whether or not the jury's verdict is supported by substantial evidence.

In reviewing a...