Haidri v. Egolf, 3-181A29
| Docket Nº | No. 3-181A29 |
| Citation | 430 N.E.2d 429 |
| Case Date | January 28, 1982 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 429
v.
Daniel L. EGOLF and Danny L. Anglin, Defendants-Appellees.
Page 430
Jon E. Newcomb, Newcomb & Beeson, Bremen, for plaintiff-appellant.
R. Michael Parker, Samuel S. Thompson, Thornburg, McGill, Deahl, Harman, Carey & Murray, Elkhart, for defendants-appellees.
GARRARD, Judge.
On February 10, 1975 at about 3:50 p.m. the appellant Haidri's automobile was struck from the rear by a tractor-trailer owned by Danny Anglin and operated by Daniel Egolf. Haidri brought suit for personal injuries alleging that Egolf had been negligent. Trial by jury commenced on July 1, 1980. At the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence the court granted the motions of both defendants for judgment on the evidence pursuant to Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 50. From that judgment Haidri appeals.
The only question raised on appeal is whether the court erred in granting judgment on the evidence. We conclude it did not. We therefore affirm.
A judgment on the evidence in favor of the defendant deprives the plaintiff of a jury decision concerning the assertedly wrongful conduct of a defendant. Mamula v. Ford Motor Co. (1971), 150 Ind.App. 179, 275 N.E.2d 849, 852. Accordingly, statements such as those employed in Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation v. Chapman (1979), Ind.App., 388 N.E.2d 541, 544 typify our expression of the trial court's obligation in ruling upon such motions:
"The rule in Indiana with respect to motions pursuant to TR 50, for judgment on the evidence, is that such a motion may properly be granted only if there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference derived therefrom supporting an essential element of the claim: a complete failure of proof. When considering a motion for judgment on the evidence, the trial court must consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the non-moving party. Huff v. Travelers Indem. Co. (1977), Ind., 363 N.E.2d 985; American Turners of South Bend v. Rodefer (1978), Ind.App., 372 N.E.2d 516. The motion must be denied 'where there is any evidence or legitimate inference therefrom tending to support at least one of the allegations. Where the evidence is such that the minds of reasonable men might differ, a directed verdict is improper, and the resolution of conflictive evidence is for the jury.' (Original emphasis). Vernon Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Sharp (1976), 264 Ind. 599, 349 N.E.2d 173, 179."
The purpose of such statements is to emphasize that it is not the function of a trial judge to weigh the evidence in passing upon a TR 50 motion. The litigants' constitutional right to have a jury determine questions of fact underpins this position.
On the other hand, the law is equally well established that a verdict which could only have been based upon surmise, conjecture or speculation as to one or more of the necessary elements of a claim should not be permitted to stand. McKeown v. Calusa (1977), 172 Ind.App. 1,
Page 431
359 N.E.2d 550, 553; see also Letson v. Lowmaster (1976), 168 Ind.App. 159, 341 N.E.2d 785. That is simply to say that there must be evidence in the record which, if believed, is sufficient to establish all the facts necessary for a recovery. Where the evidence is direct the court has little difficulty because the question is clearly one of credibility. Where, however, the evidence is circumstantial the ruling on a TR 50 motion may be indeed exacting. The question then becomes the reasonableness of the sought-for inference. Posed in the context of this case the issue is whether the evidence before the court when the motion was made 1 was sufficient to create a reasonable inference of negligence on the part of the defendants, or whether the necessary inference of negligence was unreasonable in the sense that it could exist only as a matter of surmise, conjecture or speculation. In the latter instance judgment on the evidence would be proper.The evidence introduced at trial disclosed that U. S. Highway 30 is a four lane divided highway running in a general east-west direction near the City of Warsaw. On the east...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Palmeter, No. 34A02-8609-CV-347
...no inference is created a rearward driver is negligent simply because a rear-end collision occurs. Haidri v. Egolf (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 429, The majority points to three aspects of Palmeter's conduct as being negligence, claiming they in combination make Palmeter guilty of negligenc......
-
Ramon v. Glenroy Const. Co., Inc., No. 54A01-9206-CV-181
...question for the court becomes the reasonableness of the inference sought from the evidence. See e.g. Haidri v. Egolf (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 429. Qualitatively, evidence fails when it cannot be said reasonably that the intended inference may logically be drawn therefrom. The failure o......
-
Johns v. New York Blower Co., No. 3-382A52
...each element of the claim such that a reasonable jury might have found for the opponent of the motion. Haidri v. Egolf (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 429. As a prelude to deciding whether the trial court erred it is necessary to understand the relationship between the owner, the contractor, a......
-
Harper v. Guarantee Auto Stores, No. 41A01-8712-CV-306
...contend the special circumstances necessary to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are present. Haidri v. Egolf (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 429, Harper is urging that two inferences be drawn: that the injuries to his head and neck were caused by particular instrumentalities and that G......
-
Evans v. Palmeter, 34A02-8609-CV-347
...no inference is created a rearward driver is negligent simply because a rear-end collision occurs. Haidri v. Egolf (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 429, The majority points to three aspects of Palmeter's conduct as being negligence, claiming they in combination make Palmeter guilty of negligenc......
-
Johns v. New York Blower Co., 3-382A52
...each element of the claim such that a reasonable jury might have found for the opponent of the motion. Haidri v. Egolf (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 429. As a prelude to deciding whether the trial court erred it is necessary to understand the relationship between the owner, the contractor, a......
-
Ramon v. Glenroy Const. Co., Inc., 54A01-9206-CV-181
...question for the court becomes the reasonableness of the inference sought from the evidence. See e.g. Haidri v. Egolf (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 429. Qualitatively, evidence fails when it cannot be said reasonably that the intended inference may logically be drawn therefrom. The failure o......
-
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Stokes, 3-685-A-149
...observed after her fall were there before she fell, and that they were the cause of her mishap. In Haidri v. Egolf (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 429, reh. den., we commented on the difficulty of determining what may reasonably be inferred from evidence. In that case, in which the driver of a......