Heil v. Roe, 5--5992
| Decision Date | 02 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5992,5--5992 |
| Citation | 484 S.W.2d 889,253 Ark. 139 |
| Parties | Jerome HEIL, Appellant, v. Leslie Earl ROE, Administrator of the Estate of Jeffrey Roe, Deceased, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Cockrill, Laser, McGehee, Sharp & Boswell, Little Rock, for appellant.
McMath, Leatherman & Woods, Little Rock, for appellee.
This appeal arises from a wrongful death action brought in the Pulaski County Circuit Court by Leslie Earl Roe as administrator of the estate of his minor son, Jeffrey. The question presented is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in setting aside a jury verdict and granting a new trial. We are of the opinion that he did not.
About 4:30 p.m. on September 19, 1969, Jeffrey Roe, the eight year old son of Leslie Earl Roe, was walking his bicycle east across Reservoir Road in Pulaski County when the appellant, Jerome Heil, while driving his automobile north on Reservoir Road, came over a hill and skidded 115 feet striking and fatally injuring Jeffrey. The complaint filed by Mr. Roe alleged mental anguish and loss of services to the mother's and father's damage in the amount of $100,000 and mental anguish to one brother and two sisters in the amount of $25,000 each. The complaint also alleged damages to the estate of Jeffrey Roe for medical and funeral expenses in the amount of $2,500 and judgment was prayed in these amounts. The answer of Mr. Heil denied any negligence on his part but alleged that the proximate cause of the injury and death of young Roe was the negligence of young Roe and the negligence of Mr. and Mrs. Roe in permitting their youngster to play upon public streets and to ride a bicycle thereon without proper supervision.
A jury trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff but with damages assessed at zero on each element of alleged damages except on behalf of the estate of Jeffrey Roe. The only elements of damage alleged or proven on behalf of the estate were medical and funeral expense. The total of these liquidated items amounted to $2,802 and as already stated, the complaint only alleged and prayed damages on these items in the amount of $2,500. On this item the jury verdict recited as follows: 'For and on behalf of the estate of Jeffrey Roe $5,000.00.'
We find it unnecessary to set out the instructions given to the jury or to set out and evaluate the arguments of the parties as to the propriety and necessary effect of the verdict under the instructions as given, for in granting the new trial the trial court set out his reasons for doing so as follows:
'(1) The court erroneously refused plaintiff's instruction No. 12, which would have correctly submitted the parents' claim on the same basis as that of the estate. In other words, upon reflection the court holds that the right of the parents to recover was dependent upon the negligence of decedent, Jeffrey Roe, since there was no evidence of independent negligence on the part of the parents.
(2) After refusing plaintiff's instruction No. 12, the court gave instructions No. 12A and 12B which submitted the issue of the parents' negligence to the jury. Upon reflection the court holds that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the parents and this issue should not have been submitted. Instruction No. 12A and 12B should not have been given.
(3) Even assuming that the parents were guilty of negligence under the testimony of this case, the jury by its verdict found that the decedent, Jeffrey Roe, was not negligent, since it awarded full damages to his estate. Any negligence of the parents could not therefore have been the proximate cause of Jeffrey Roe's death.
(4) The court further holds that, even if the jury was correctly instructed on the issue of the parents' negligence, the finding by the jury that the parents were negligent in any equal or greater degree than the defendant or that the parents did not suffer damage in the death of their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lowry v. State
-
Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Owen, 73--101
...trials. This discretion is not limited to cases where sufficiency of the evidence is the ground for the motion. See, e.g., Heil v. Roe, 253 Ark. 139, 484 S.W.2d 889; Millers Casualty Insurance Co. v. Holbert, 253 Ark. 69, 484 S.W.2d 528; Hardin v. Pennington, 240 Ark. 1000, 403 S.W.2d 71; T......
-
Smith v. Villarreal, 5--6094
...412 S.W.2d 838; Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Clark, 246 Ark. 824, 440 S.W.2d 198; Dorey v. McCoy, 246 Ark. 1244, 422 S.W.2d 202; Heil v. Roe, 252 Ark. ---, 484 S.W.2d 889. The judgment is ...
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Taylor, 76--91
...has been granted than when it is denied. Worth James Construction Co. v. Herring, 242 Ark. 156, 412 S.W.2d 838 (1967); Heil v. Roe, 253 Ark. 139, 484 S.W.2d 889 (1972). We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in this Since the first reason given by the trial court for granting a n......