Ebert v. Newton, 11689

• Citation: 546 P.2d 64,97 Idaho 418
• Decision Date: 18 February 1976
• Docket Number: No. 11689,11689
• Parties: Lawrence A. EBERT and Alvina Ebert, husband and wife, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. Richard W. NEWTON and Patricia F. Newton, husband and wife, Defendants- Respondents.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

Page 64

546 P.2d 64

97 Idaho 418

Lawrence A. EBERT and Alvina Ebert, husband and wife, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. Richard W. NEWTON and Patricia F. Newton, husband and wife, Defendants- Respondents.

No. 11689.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Feb. 18, 1976.

D. Blair Clark, Anderson, Kaufman, Anderson & Ringert, Boise, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Phillip M. Barber, Elam, Burke, Jeppesen, Evans & Boyd, Boise, for defendants-respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment following trial and jury verdict in favor of defendants and thereafter denial of a motion for a new trial. Plaintiffs characterized the issue as to whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict and judgment. We affirm.

Plaintiffs-appellants brought suit for personal injury alleged to have been sustained by Lawrence Ebert and caused by defendant-respondent Patricia Newton's alleged negligence in the following circumstances. Jefferson Street in Boise, Idaho, at the point in question is a one-way street for traffic travelling west. It intersects with 10th Street which is also a one-way street for traffic travelling south. Respondents Newton's car had been parked at the left curb of Jefferson in the Marked parking space nearest the intersection with 10th. Mrs. Newton started the vehicle and immediately began a left turn onto 10th. In the meantime, Ebert was driving his vehicle west on Jefferson in the left lane and also preparing to turn left onto 10th. The two vehicles collided while each was attempting to turn left onto 10th.

After trial the following special verdict interrogatory was submitted to the jury: 'Was the defendant, Patricia F. Newton, guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident and the consequent damages and injuries?' (Emphasis supplied.) The jury answered 'no' to that interrogatory, the trial court thereupon entered judgment for defendants and thereafter denied plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.

Appellants assert that Mrs. Newton was negligent as a matter of law in failing to drive her vehicle from the parking spot into the lane of traffic on Jefferson Street prior to attempting a left turn onto 10th Street. We do not reach that question since, even assuming arguendo that Mrs. Newton was negligent as a matter of law, such does not relieve a plaintiff from persuading the jury that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident and the consequent damages and injuries. Lundy v. Hazen, 90 Idaho 323, 411 P.2d 768 (1966); Tendoy v. West, 51 Idaho 679, 9 P.2d 1026 (1932). A plaintiff carries the burden of persuading the trier of fact by a preponderance of the evidence that he has proven all of the necessary elements of his cause of action. Cole-Collister Fire Protection District v. City of Boise, 93 Idaho 558, 468 P.2d 290 (1970); Anderson v. Ruberg, 66 Idaho 417, 160 P.2d 456 (1945). In a personal injury action, causation is a necessary element of proof and upon the record before us causation was a question for a jury resolution. Schaefer v. Elswood Trailer Sales, 95 Idaho 654, 516 P.2d 1168 (1973); Dawson...