Mitchell v. Lawson

Decision Date24 July 1969
Docket NumberNo. 668,No. 1,668,1
Citation250 N.E.2d 259,145 Ind.App. 141,18 Ind.Dec. 257
PartiesLinda MITCHELL, Special Administratrix of the Estate of Ronald L. Mitchell, Deceased, Appellant, v. Robert G. LAWSON, Appellee. A 107
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

William D. Hall, Hall & Pace, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Robert G. Lawson, pro se.

CARSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from Marion Superior Court Room 5, wherein the appellant, Special Administratrix of the Estate of Ronald L. Mitchell brought an action against Robert G. Lawson for the alleged wrongful death of the appellant's husband. The death was alleged to have been the result of an accident between the appellant's deceased husband and the defendant-appellee at a stop light at 30th Street and Fall Creek Parkway North Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana.

The appellee has not filed a brief in this case and we therefore must apply the rule that if the appellant establishes a prima facie case of reversible error, it is the duty of this court to reverse. Harrington v. Hartman (1968), Ind.App., 233 N.E.2d 189, 12 Ind.Dec. 544; and, Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County, etc. v. Schabler et al. (1968), Ind.App., 15 Ind.Dec. 238, 239 N.E.2d 599.

The appellant states the issues to be:

'(a) Whether or not appellee negligently and carelessly drove into the intersection of 30th Street and Fall Creek Parkway, North Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana, against the red light, in such manner that the left front portion of his car collided violently with the right rear portion of the car the decedent, Ronald L. Mitchell, was driving, directly and proximately causing him to be thrown out and killed.

'(b) Whether or not the decedent was guilty of contributory negligence in his failure to do what a reasonably careful and prudent person would have done under the same or like circumstances, and whether he died as a result of such failure.'

The trial was by jury who returned a verdict for the defendant-appellee and the court rendered consistent judgment thereon. From this judgment, the plaintiff-appellant appealed and timely filed a motion for a new trial which in pertinent part reads as follows:

'(1) The verdict and the finding, decision, and judgment of the Court were not sustained by sufficient evidence and are contrary to law, and that the defendant did not sustain the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on his special defense of contributory negligence.'

The remaining specifications of said Motion, being Nos. 2 through 7 inclusive, present nothing for our consideration since they are not within the language of the statute specifying the grounds for a motion for a new trial. American National Bank and Trust Co. v. Hines (1968), Ind.App., 239 N.E.2d 589 (transfer denied).

The first part of Specification No. 1, to the effect that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, presents no question for our consideration since this is an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Thompson Farms, Inc. v. Corno Feed Products, Division of Nat. Oats Co., Inc., 1-1075A191
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • August 3, 1977
    ...the causes which may make such new trial necessary. (Acts 1881 (Spec.Sess.), ch. 38, § 420, p. 240.)3 Corno cites Mitchell v. Lawson (1969), 145 Ind.App. 141, 250 N.E.2d 259, for the proposition that when two or more assignments of error are assigned jointly, or in gross, "all such reasons ......
  • St. Joseph Bank & Trust Co. v. Putman
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 3, 1969
    ...cannot serve as grounds for reversal. See Swanson v. Slagal, Administratrix (1937),212 Ind. 394, 8 N.E.2d 993; Mitchell v. Lawson (1969), Ind.App., 250 N.E.2d 259. This court will not disturb the decision or verdict of the jury unless it is apparent from the record that there is a total lac......
  • Dooley v. Richard's Standard Service
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 16, 1969 prove his right to compensation. See Thomas Products, Inc. v. Review Board (1969), Ind.App., 251 N.E.2d 473; Mitchell v. Lawson (1969), Ind.App., 250 N.E.2d 259; Lewis v. Marhoefer Packing Co. (1969), Ind.App., 245 N.E.2d 685; and, B.P.O. Elks, #209 v. Sponholtz (1969), Ind.App., 244 N.E......
  • Wagner Const. Co., Inc. v. Noonan
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • May 13, 1980
    ...(1978) Ind.App., 370 N.E.2d 1333; Michels v. Young Metal Products, Inc., (1971) 148 Ind.App. 502, 267 N.E.2d 572; Mitchell v. Lawson, (1969) 145 Ind.App. 141, 250 N.E.2d 259. Further, although our reversal is based upon the second issue raised on appeal, we believe the other issues, except ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT