Loosli v. Bollinger
| Decision Date | 13 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 9650,9650 |
| Parties | Franklin D. LOOSLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lester G. BOLLINGER and Eidon W. Bollinger, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Robert F. McLaughlin, Mountain Home, for appellant.
Elam, Burke, Jeppesen & Evans, Boise, for respondents.
Plaintiff-appellant Franklin D. Loosli commenced this action seeking damages caused by an automobile collision at the uncontrolled intersection of East 6th South Street and Woodruff Lane near Mountain Home. Loosli was driving his automobile east on East 6th South Street at approximately 25 miles per hour. Upon approaching the intersection he slowed down and not seeing other vehicular traffic, entered the intersection. Defendant-respondent Lester G. Bollinger was driving his automobile north on Woodruff Lane at a speed of 45 to 50 miles per hour. When 60 feet from the intersection, Bollinger first saw the plaintiff's car entering the intersection. In an unsuccessful attempt to avoid a collision, Bollinger applied his brakes, leaving skid marks of 42 1/2 feet. The Loosli car was approximately in the middle of the intersection, 2 1/2 feet north of the south edge of its lane, when it was struck in the center of its right side by the Bollinger car.
The accident occurred shortly after noon; the visibility was clear; there were no other cars in the vicinity; and, except for a silo located in a field on Bollinger's left, there was no obstruction of each driver's view of the other as he approached the intersection.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $17,500. After judgment was entered thereon, the defendants moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This motion was granted on the grounds that 'the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.' The verdict was set aside and judgment was entered for defendants. From that judgment, plaintiff appeals.
In a recent case involving facts almost indentical to those herein, this court held that the plaintiff's alleged contributory negligence and the defendant's alleged negligence were questions for the jury and that neither should be decided by the trial court as a matter of law. Nagel v. Hammond, Idaho, 408 P.2d 468 (1965).
A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under I.R.C.P. 50(b) admits the truth of the adversary's evidence and every inference of fact which legitimately may be drawn therefrom and should be granted only in the absence of evidence to support the verdict. Mabe v. State ex rel. Rich, 86 Idaho 254, 385 P.2d 401 (1963).
In the present case the evidence is sufficient to support a finding by the jury that the defendant was negligent in failing to yield the right-of-way, contrary to I.C. § 46-727(a) 1 and in failing to reduce his speed, contrary to I.C. § 49-701(c). 2
On the other hand, the evidence as to the plaintiff's contributory negligence is not so clear as to require determination by the court.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deshazer v. Tompkins
...that a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be granted only in the absence of evidence to support the verdict. Loosli v. Bollinger, 90 Idaho 464, 413 P.2d 684 (1966); Mabe v. State ex rel. Rich, 86 Idaho 254, 385 P.2d 401 (1963); Foster v. Thomas, 85 Idaho 565, 382 P.2d 792 (1963); F......
-
Chisholm v. J. R. Simplot Co.
...v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 93 Idaho 275, 460 P.2d 410 (1969); Bratton v. Slininger, 93 Idaho 248, 460 P.2d 383 (1969); Loosli v. Bollinger, 90 Idaho 464, 413 P.2d 684 (1966); Mabe v. State ex rel. Rich, 86 Idaho 254, 385 P.2d 401 (1963); Foster v. Thomas, 85 Idaho 565, 382 P.2d 792 (1963).4 Sin......
-
Mann v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
...basically the same thing in Deshazer v. Tompkins, 93 Idaho 267, 460 P.2d 402 (1969); Bratton v. Slininger, supra; and Loosli v. Bollinger, 90 Idaho 464, 413 P.2d 684 (1966). In those cases, we stated that it should be granted only when there is an absence of evidence to support the verdict ......
-
Dawson v. Olson
...Bell v. Carlson, 75 Idaho 193, 198, 270 P.2d 420 (1954).13 See I.C. § 49-751(d).14 See I.C. § 49-729.15 E. g., Loosli v. Bollinger, 90 Idaho 464, 413 P.2d 684 (1966); Otts v. Brough, 90 Idaho 124, 409 P.2d 95 (1965).16 I.C. § 13-219 provides, 'that whenever there is substantial evidence to ......