Grange v. Finlay
| Decision Date | 24 August 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 35709,35709 |
| Citation | 364 P.2d 234,58 Wn.2d 528 |
| Parties | Percy GRANGE and Esther Grange, his wife, Appellants, v. William T. FINLAY, and Jane Doe Finlay, his wife, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Paul D. Jackson, Seattle, for appellants.
Rode, Cook, Watkins & Orth, Thomas D. Loftus, Seattle, for respondents.
This action was brought by the owners of a pleasure boat moorage on Lake Washington, alleging that their moorage facilities had been damaged by a fire which resulted from the negligence of William T. Finlay, hereafter referred to as the defendant. After a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the court granted a judgment non obstante veredicto on motion of the defendants, and this appeal followed.
Such a motion involves no element of discretion and will not be granted unless the court can say, as a matter of law, that there is neither evidence nor reasonable inference from evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict. In ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, and all material evidence favorable to the contention of the party benefited by the verdict must be taken as true. If there is substantial evidence supporting the verdict of the jury, as distinguished from a mere scintilla of evidence, the verdict must stand. By 'substantial evidence' is meant that character of evidence which would convince an unprejudiced, thinking mind of the truth of the fact to which the evidence is directed. These very well-established principles are all set forth in Omeitt v. Department of Labor and Industries, 21 Wash.2d 684, 152 P.2d 973, with numerous authorities cited.
The defendant in this action was a user of the moorage facilities provided by the plaintiffs. On the day preceding the fire, according to his testimony, he took his twenty-two foot cruiser out into the lake at about 5:30 p. m. His boat had not been running well, and he thought the reason was that water was mixed with the gasoline. When he took the boat out into the lake, he removed the cover from the motor and cleaned out the sediment and water, took off the sediment bowls, and threw the gasoline in them overboard. Because of the construction of the gasoline tank, about two measuring cups of gasoline dripped into the boat bilges while the sediment bowls were removed.
After the bowls were replaced, the defendant attempted to start the motor. There was a bright flash throughout and under the floorboards of the boat. A fire immediately broke out in the cabin. The defendant's fire extinguisher was in the cabin, but, because of the heat of the flames, he could not reach it. Another boat came alongside with two persons aboard who tried to help, but were unable to extinguish the fire. A few minutes later a cruiser came alongside with a CO sub2 extinguisher with which the fire was apparently extinguished. The defendant then beached the boat and took up some floorboards in the cockpit to examine for fire, but did not take up the floorboards in the cabin. One of the mattresses in the cabin had caught fire; he tore it apart for two or more inches and poured water on it, but did not remove the mattress from the cabin. He then took the boat back to the plaintiffs' moorage where he examined it again, and doused more water on the mattress.
The defendant remained at the moorage for about fifteen minutes. He then went to the plaintiff Percy Grange and reported to him that there had been a fire on the boat, and then went home.
At about 2:00 a. m. on the following morning, the plaintiffs were awakened by the light of a fire on the boat. The plaintiff wife stated that when she first looked at the fire, it was blazing high above the cabin or mid-section of the boat. The next morning she noticed what she thought was a charred cushion or mattress in the location where the fire had been blazing when she first saw it. This fire spread to the plaintiffs' moorage facilities and caused the damage for which this suit was brought.
The court instructed the jury that, if it found that the fire was caused by the negligence of the defendant in failing to extinguish the first fire, its verdict should be for the plaintiffs. The jury so found; but thereafter the court determined that there was no evidence that the fire was the result of negligence of the defendant and reversed the verdict.
Negligence cannot be assumed merely because the evidence shows that a fire occurred or an accident happened....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Callahan v. Keystone Fireworks Mfg. Co.
...must recognize the distinction between that which is mere conjecture and what is a reasonable inference.' See also Grange v. Finlay, 58 Wash.2d 528, 364 P.2d 234 (1961); W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 44 at 222--223 (2d ed. Keystone, in support of its argument on the insufficiency of the eviden......
-
Campbell v. ITE Imperial Corp.
...the verdict. All evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made. Grange v. Finlay, 58 Wn.2d 528, 364 P.2d 234 (1961). There must be "substantial evidence" as distinguished from a "mere scintilla" of evidence, to support the verdict--i.e., ev......
-
State v. Rhymes, 2108
...which would convince an unprejudiced thinking mind of the truth of the fact to which the evidence is directed. Grange v. Finlay, 58 Wash.2d 528, 364 P.2d 234, 235. If reasonable men may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue then such evidence must be consi......
-
Heydt v. Ebert
... ... claims, the trial court did not err in denying Ebert and ... Bruers' motion for JNV. Grange v. Finlay , 58 ... Wn.2d 528, 529, 364 P.2d 234 (1961) ... B ... Remittitur ... Ebert ... ...