Harden v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 December 1961
• Docket Number: No. 50457,50457
• Parties: William M. HARDEN, and William M. Harden, Administrator of the Estate of Maurice W. Harden, deceased, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 324

112 N.W.2d 324

253 Iowa 341

William M. HARDEN, and William M. Harden, Administrator of the Estate of Maurice W. Harden, deceased, Appellant, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 50457.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 12, 1961.

Mitchell, Mitchell & Murray, John J. Murray, Fort Dodge, for appellant.

Burnquist, Helsell, Burnquist & Kersten, Fort Dodge, for appellee.

HAYS, Justice.

This is a law action for damages in a death case arising out of a collision between defendant's train and a car being operated by plaintiff's decedent. The jury found decedent was contributorily negligent and returned a verdict for the defendant. A motion for a new trial based upon misconduct of the jurors was overruled. Upon this appeal the single issue is the ruling upon the motion.

One of the questions pertaining to the question of contributory negligence of the driver of decedent's car, was the speed at which he approached the railroad crossing where the collision occurred. There was testimony by a highway patrolman as to the stopping distance of a car being driven at various speeds. There was also testimony as to speed at which a driver could safely negotiate some curves on the road as it approached the crossing.

I. It appears conclusively by affidavit and testimony of the jurors, that one of their members took with him into the jury room two pages from a handbook prepared and circulated by the Ford Motor Company. The heading is 'Averaged stopping distance on dry level concrete surfaces'. It contains a series of pictures listing speed and total stopping distance for each speed listed. There is a substantial difference in the testimony of the patrolman and as set forth in the chart. It is clear that this chart was examined by various jurors and was openly discussed in the presence of all of the jurors.

Upon the granting of or refusing a new trial, based upon misconduct of jurors, the law is fairly well settled and there is no dispute between the instant parties regarding the same. There rests in the trial court considerable discretion in determining whether the misconduct alleged is of such a status, as to require the granting of a new trial, which will only be disturbed where an abuse of such judicial discretion appears. Bashford v. Slater, 250 Iowa 857, 96 N.W.2d 904; Hamdorf v. Corrie, 251 Iowa 896, 101 N.W.2d 836, and cited authorities. The rule as to what may be shown to have taken place among the jurors, in a motion for a new trial is set forth in Long v. Gilchrist, 251 Iowa 1294, 1295, 1300, 105 N.W.2d 82, 86, as follows: 'That affidavits of jurors may be received for the purpose of avoiding a verdict, to show any matter occurring during the trial or in the jury room which does not essentially inhere in the verdict itself: as that a juror was improperly approached by a party, his agent or attorney; that witnesses or others conversed as to the facts or merits of the cause out of court and in the presence of jurors; that the verdict was determined by aggregation and average or by lot, or by game of chance or other artifice or improper manner; but that such affidavit to...