Klever v. Reid Bros. Exp.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1951
• Docket Number: No. 32189,32189
• Citation: 154 Ohio St. 491,43 O.O. 429,96 N.E.2d 781
• Parties: , 43 O.O. 429 KLEVER et al. v. REID BROS. EXPRESS, Inc.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 491

154 Ohio St. 491

96 N.E.2d 781, 43 O.O. 429

KLEVER et al. v. REID BROS. EXPRESS, Inc.

No. 32189.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Jan. 31, 1951.

Syllabus by the Court

1. An order by a Court of Common Pleas granting a motion for a new trial in an action commenced prior to the effective date of the amendment to Section 6, Article IV of the Constitution of Ohio, in 1945 and prior to the amendment in 1947 of Section 12223-2, General Code (122 Ohio Laws, 754), does not constitute a judgment or final order reviewable by the Court of Appeals, unless it clearly appears that the court in making such order abused its discretion. (Hoffman v. Knollman, 135 Ohio St. 170, 20 N.E.2d 221, approved and followed.)

2. The term, 'abuse of discretion,' as it relates to an order granting a motion for a new trial, connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies an unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable attitude on the part of the court in granting such motion. (Paragraph two of the syllabus in the case of Steiner v. Custer, 137 Ohio St. 448, 31 N.E.2d 855, approved and followed.)

3. The allegation of a single cause of action with several specifications of negligence presents but one issue, and the two-issue rule as defined and applied by the Supreme Court of Ohio does not apply in such a situation. Readnour v. Cincinnati Street Ry. Co., 154 Ohio St. 69, 93 N.E.2d 587, approved and followed.)

This is the second time this cause has been before this court. The action originated in the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County in May 1942 and arose from a collision between two motor vehicles operated, respectively, by the plaintiff, William H. Klever, and Reid Bros. Express, Inc., hereinafter called defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the collision and his resulting damages were proximately caused by the negligence of defendant in backing out its trailer-truck on the highway in front of his approaching automobile. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, but, by reason of the answers of the jury to certain interrogatories submitted to the jury at the request of the defendant, the trial court sustained defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the Court of Appeals affirmed such action. 83 N.E.2d 108.

This court allowed plaintiff's motion to certify and after hearing the cause on its merits reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the cause to the court of first instance 'to pass upon defendant's motion for a new trial.' Attention is directed to the former decision of this court reported in 151 Ohio St. 467, 86 N.E.2d 608.

Pursuant to the direction of this court, the Court of Common Pleas considered the motion for a new trial and sustained the same in September 1949, on the ground that an error of commission occurred in the instructions to the jury prejudicial to defendant.

Again, plaintiff went to the Court of Appeals on appeal, and that court, on motion, dismissed the appeal for the reason that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in granting the motion and, hence, under the law applicable to the case there was no final order from which an appeal would lie.

The judges of the Court of Appeals found the judgment rendered in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Scioto county, in the case of Cook v. Portsmouth City Lines, Inc., No. 557, and certified the cause to this court for review.

Raymond J. Finley, Akron, for appellants.

James Olds and H. A. Waltz, Akron, for appellee.

ZIMMERMAN, Judge.

In the presentation of his present appeal to this court, plaintiff makes three principal claims, first, that the amendment to Section 6, Article IV of the Constitution of Ohio, effective January 1, 1945, operated to validate and revitalize Section 12223-2, General Code, as it then existed, so that the granting of a motion for new trial, after the effective date of such constitutional amendment, constituted a final order reviewable on appeal, second, that the trial court actually committed an abuse of discretion in granting the motion for a new trial and the Court of Appeals did not afford plaintiff a fair opportunity to demonstrate such fact, and, third, that, since the alleged erroneous instruction related only to one of the several negligent acts charged against defendant and there was a general verdict for plaintiff, the so-called two-issue rule applied and an erroneous instruction affecting only one of such grounds of negligence could not have been prejudicial.

We shall discuss these claims in the order stated.

As has already been noted, the present action was instituted in May 1942. In 1939 this court decided the case of Hoffman v. Knollman, 135 Ohio St. 170, 20 N.E.2d 221; a part of the syllabus whereof reads as follows:

'2. An order of a trial court setting aside a general verdict of a jury and granting a new trial is not a final determination of the rights of the parties and is not, therefore, a judgment or final order reviewable by the Court of Appeals, unless it clearly appears that the trial court has abused its discretion in granting such order.

'3. The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals is conferred by Section 6, Article IV of the Constitution, and cannot be enlarged or curtailed by legislative action.

'4. The amendment of Section 12223-2, General Code (117 Ohio Laws, 615), effective August 23, 1937, providing that 'vacating or settling aside a general verdict of a jury and ordering a new trial, is a final order,' would, if given effect, enlarge the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, and is,...