Little America Refining Co. v. Leyba
| Decision Date | 07 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 17331,17331 |
| Citation | 641 P.2d 112 |
| Parties | LITTLE AMERICA REFINING CO., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Jesse Albert LEYBA, Defendant and Sven Heimberg, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Steven G. Johnson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.
Frank N. Karras, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.
Plaintiff, Little America Refining Co., appeals a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case in favor of defendant Heimberg. A default judgment had earlier been entered against defendant Leyba. On this appeal, plaintiff's sole contention is that there was sufficient evidence of Heimberg's negligence and of proximate cause to require the case to be submitted to the jury.
On April 2, 1979, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Heimberg, accompanied by two other men, drove his pickup north on State Street in Salt Lake City where they encountered a pickup containing Leyba and two others. The vehicles raced their engines, and the occupants exchanged words. As they proceeded north on State Street, Heimberg's passengers threw firecrackers at Leyba's vehicle. At the North Temple intersection, Leyba sped past Heimberg and both proceeded up the hill towards the Capitol. At Third North, Leyba turned right and Heimberg turned left. Leyba turned around, caught up with Heimberg at the corner of Third North and Columbus Street (Main Street), and passed as Heimberg turned right towards Victory Road. Leyba stopped his truck at an angle in the road and Heimberg stopped behind him. Passengers of the Leyba vehicle got out and exchanged words with Heimberg's passengers. James Harris, one of Heimberg's passengers, hit one of Leyba's party, knocking him down. After the fight, an occupant of Leyba's truck told Harris, Harris returned to the Heimberg vehicle, which was then backed up and driven around Leyba. Neither defendant left his vehicle or exchanged words with any adverse party.
Heimberg proceeded north down Victory Road towards Beck Street. He testified that he was driving at a normal rate of speed. When he was approximately half way down the hill, he noticed a vehicle passing other cars behind him. By the time he reached the bottom of the hill, he realized it was Leyba's truck. Leyba pulled out to the left and his right front bumper struck the left rear of Heimberg's truck, sending it skidding toward the Little America gas station, where it hit a service island, damaging pumps, light fixtures and signs, and causing a fire. Heimberg testified that he did not participate in a race.
Little America introduced evidence from two station attendants who witnessed the collision and the resulting destruction. Both saw the vehicles just seconds before the collision and testified that they thought the two trucks were racing and going faster than normal traffic down the hill. 1 Prior to their seeing the truck, they had heard the unusual loudness of their engines as they descended Victory Road. Testimony also established that the Leyba truck was traveling faster than the Heimberg vehicle.
The jury is entrusted to resolve all relevant questions of fact presented to the court. The questions of fact include findings of negligence, apportionment of fault, witness credibility and the weight and inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Lamkin v. Lynch, Utah, 600 P.2d 530 (1979); Kimiko Toma v. Utah Power & Light Co., 12 Utah 2d 278, 365 P.2d 788 (1961). A motion for directed verdict will not be sustained if the evidence allows reasonable persons to reach different conclusions on the issues in controversy. Curtis v. Harmon Electronics, Inc., Utah, 575 P.2d 1044 (1978); McCloud v. Baum, Utah, 569 P.2d 1125 (1977). Evidence must be reviewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to afford him the benefit of all inferences which the evidence fairly supports. Curtis v. Harmon Electronics, Inc., supra, Anderson v. Gribble, 30 Utah 2d 68, 513 P.2d 432 (1973); Koer v. Mayfair Markets, 19 Utah 2d 339, 431 P.2d 566 (1967). If reasonable inferences may be drawn from the evidence supporting a judgment for the nonmoving party, the directed verdict motion cannot be sustained. Kim v. Anderson, Utah, 610 P.2d 1270 (1980).
Plaintiff must, of course, present evidence which reasonable persons could find had established a prima facie case of negligence before the court submits the case to the jury. Lindsay v. Gibbons and Reed, 27 Utah 2d 419, 497 P.2d 28 (1972). Little America's negligence claim is based on the theory that the damage resulted from Heimberg racing with Leyba in breach of a statutory prohibition. Racing on public streets and highways violates Utah Code Ann., 1953, § 41-6-51(a), as amended, which states: "No person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Utah Transit Authority
...evidence is in dispute, including the inferences from the evidence, the issue should be submitted to the jury. Little America Refining Co. v. Leyba, Utah, 641 P.2d 112 (1982); FMA Acceptance Co. v. Leatherby Insurance Co., Utah, 594 P.2d 1332 (1979). See also Bowen v. Riverton City, Utah, 6......
-
Harris v. Shopko Stores, Inc.
...value. We decline to reach this issue given our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support the Apportionment Instruction. 35.Little Am. Ref. Co. v. Leyba, 641 P.2d 112, 114 (Utah 1982); see also Anderson v. Bradley, 590 P.2d 339, 342 (Utah 1979) (“[I]t is the jury's prerogat......
-
Nelson By and Through Stuckman v. Salt Lake City
...While the Jordan River is undoubtedly the actual cause of Nelson's injury, it may not be the proximate cause. See Little Am. Ref. Co. v. Leyba, 641 P.2d 112 (Utah 1982). As we previously noted, "It is common place in the law that an act, omission, or force may be an actual cause, but not a ......
-
State v. Haltom
...policy, and Haltom's claimed reliance upon it, amounted to the reasonable care required by section 76-10-1206. Cf. Little Am. Ref. Co. v. Leyba, 641 P.2d 112, 114 (Utah 1982) ("The jury is entrusted to resolve all relevant questions of fact presented to the court. The questions of fact incl......
-
Reflections on the Constitutionality of the Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Act
...607. [22] 717 P.2d 670, 686 (Utah 1985). [23]Hall v. Warren, 632 P.2d 848, 850-51 (Utah 1981); Little America Refining Company v. Leyba, 641 P.2d 112, 114 n. 3 (Utah 1982). [24] Utah Code Annotated §§ 78-27-37 through 43 (1986). [25] 692 P.2d 728, 732-33 (Utah 1984). [26] See generally Pott......
-
It Is Time to Revise Jifu
...the negligence per se rule applies only to cases concerning dangerous instrumentalities. See also Little America Refining Co. v. Leyba, 641 P.2d 112, 114 n. 3 (Utah 1982). Another incomplete statement of Utah law can be found in JIFU 16.15, which attempts to define when a child can be contr......