Moore v. Funk
Citation | 293 N.E.2d 534,155 Ind.App. 545 |
Decision Date | 20 March 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 3--572A1,3--572A1 |
Parties | Dorothy P. MOORE, Appellant, v. Suzanne D. FUNK and Stanley M. Funk, Appellees. Jack MOORE, Appellant, v. Suzanne D. FUNK and Stanley M. Funk, Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Maxwell P. Smith and Thomas S. Locke, of Smith & Locke, Don W. Wyneken, of Blume, Wyneken, Levine & Clifford, Fort Wayne, for appellants.
Milford M. Miller and Edward L. Murphy, Jr., of Livingston, Dildine, Haynie & Yoder, Ft. Wayne, for appellees.
STATEMENT ON THE APPEAL: Dorothy P. Moore was driving her car south on Lima Road in Fort Wayne, Indiana. She turned left into the cross-over at the Dunn Street 'T' intersection and waited for the northbound traffic to clear so that she could enter the driveway of the Panel Mart. It was a dark, rainy, October morning. Suzanne D. Funk had just driven her father to work and was on her way to the Fort Wayne Regional Campus. She too was driving her car south on Lima Road and was approximately 100 feet from the rear of Dorothy P. Moore's automobile when it suddenly appeared to her that she might strike a small portion of the Moore car which was protruding into the southbound lane. She applied her brakes and the car began to skid on the wet pavement. A collision occurred which pushed the Moore car into oncoming traffic from the north where it was struck again broadside by a third car.
Dorothy Moore brought an action for damages against Suzanne Funk and her father, Stanley M. Funk. 1 Suzanne D. Funk's defense was based upon a 'sudden emergency.' The jury returned a negative verdict. Dorothy Moore's motion to correct errors and her brief present two alleged errors. 2 These two alleged errors concern themselves with instructions given to the jury:
1. Was there sufficient evidence to warrant the giving of an instruction on sudden emergency?
2. Was the giving of Suzanne D. Funk's instruction number ten (10) error for the reason that it was not complete?
We conclude in our opinion which follows that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the giving of an instruction on 'sudden emergency' but that the trial court did commit error by giving Suzanne D. Funk's instruction number ten (10). Our opinion reverses the judgment of the trial court.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: On October 27, 1967 at approximately 8:00 o'clock A.M., Mrs. Dorothy P. Moore, hereinafter referred to as Mrs. Moore, was traveling south on Lima Road. She came to the 'T' intersection at Dunn Street, entered the cross-over, stopped and waited for northbound traffic to clear.
Miss Suzanne D. Funk, hereinafter referred to as Miss Funk, was on her way to the Fort Wayne Regional Campus after driving her father to work. It was a rainy, dark morning and visibility was poor. Miss Funk was traveling south in the eastern or inside lane of traffic on Lima Road. Lima Road, at the intersection of Dunn Street, has two through lanes and a turn lane for northbound traffic and two through lanes for southbound traffic. North and southbound traffic is separated by a sixteen foot earth filled median strip.
When Mrs. Moore's car was stopped at the cross-over, approximately one foot of her car extended back into the inner lane for southbound traffic. Miss Funk testified that she did not see the portion of Mrs. Moore's car in her lane until she was approximately 100 feet away. She then 'hit' her brakes and skidded into the rear of Mrs. Moore's automobile. Mrs. Moore's car was pushed into the northbound lanes where it was hit broadside by a car driven by Mr. Holuvetz.
There is a dispute in the evidence as to whether Mrs. Moore had any turn signals or lights on. However, Miss Funk testified:
Mrs. Moore and her husband, Jack Moore, filed suit on October 2, 1969 seeking $60,000.00 and $25,000.00 respectively. Trial began on June 1, 1971. At the close of Moore's case in chief, Mr. Funk received a directed verdict. At the close of all the evidence, the jury returned a negative verdict. Mrs. Moore filed her motion to correct errors on July 30, 1971 which was overruled on February 28, 1972. The case was fully briefed and distributed to this court on October 25, 1972. Oral argument was completed on December 7, 1972.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES:
Two issues are raised by this appeal:
1. Was there sufficient evidence to warrant the giving of an instruction on sudden emergency?
2. Was the giving of Suzanne D. Funk's instruction number ten (10) error for the reason that it was not complete?
STATEMENT ON THE LAW: We will discuss the applicable law to both of the above issues in this section of our opinion, and we will designate our discussion of each issue as ISSUE ONE and ISSUE TWO.
A short preface to our discussion of the merits on the above issues is necessary here to dispose of a contention by Miss Funk that both of the issues to be discussed have been waived by Mrs. Moore. AP. 8.3(A)(7) requires that a verbatim objection to the instruction must be set forth in the appellant's brief. Miss Funk contends that Mrs. Moore's failure to set forth the verbatim objections in her brief amounts to a waiver of any error. Technically, Miss Funk is correct. 3 Mrs. Moore's brief has made references to the pages in the transcript where the objections appear. Where there has been substantial compliance with the rules, the omission will not result in a waiver of the error. Williams v. State (1969), 253 Ind. 316, 318, 253 N.E.2d 242.
ISSUE ONE:
Did the trial court commit an error when it gave to the jury the 'sudden emergency' instruction offered by Miss Funk?
Miss Funk's instruction number six (6) and the objection by Mrs. Moore is the substance of this contention of error. Miss Funk's instruction number six (6) is as follows:
The specific objection to this instruction was:
Miss Funk contends that Mrs. Moore is limited on appeal to the specific objection made at trial and that the above objection does not raise the correctness of the law which is argued in Mrs. Moore's brief. Miss Funk further contends that the objection made at trial raises the question as to whether there is sufficient evidence to support the giving of an instruction on 'sudden emergency.' 4 Miss Funk's contention is a correct statement of the law. Allman v. Malsbury (1946), 224 Ind. 177, 65 N.E.2d 106. The reason for the rule was stated in an opinion written by Judge Sullivan, Conley v. Lothamer (1971), Ind.App., 276 N.E.2d 602, 605:
'The purpose . . . is to protect the trial court from inadvertent error.
'. . . (T)he objection must be meaningful enough to raise the veil disclosing error.'
A second statement of the purpose can be found in 3 Harvey--Indiana Rules of Procedure at 406:
'. . . The reason for condemning this practice (making general objections) is that the court may well have obviated the error if its attention was directed at the proper time to the particular matter about which the party may subsequently complain on appeal.'
The objection made by Mrs. Moore to the trial court raises the question of sufficiency of the evidence to support the giving of the 'sudden emergency' instruction. We shall address ourselves to this objection since it is the only objection brought to the attention of the trial court.
Miss Funk was entitled to have an instruction given to the jury based upon her own theory of the case if the theory was within the issues and if there was any evidence fairly tending to support the giving of the instruction. Lavengood v. Lavengood (1947), 225 Ind. 206, 73 N.E.2d 685; Lawson v. Webster (1962), 133 Ind.App. 296, 181 N.E.2d 870; and Acme-Evans Company v. Schnepf (1938), 214 Ind. 394, 14 N.E.2d 561.
The elements which establish the defense of 'sudden emergency' are:
'(1) That the appearance of danger or peril was so imminent that he had no time for deliberation; (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frasier v. State
...An instruction on a certain theory in a case is proper if within the issues and there is any evidence to support it. Moore v. Funk, (1973) Ind.App., 293 N.E.2d 534. A court in determining whether an instruction is applicable to the evidence must consider all reasonable inferences which migh......
-
Birdsong v. ITT Continental Baking Co.
...his seatbelt fastened at the time of the collision. An instruction must be within the issues and supported by evidence. Moore v. Funk (1973), Ind.App., 293 N.E.2d 534; Lawson v. Webster (1962), 133 Ind.App. 296, 181 N.E.2d 870. It is reversible error to give an instruction that is not suppo......
-
Hixon v. Mathieu
...aff'd, 167 F.2d 633 (3d Cir. 1948); Bundy v. Ambulance Indianapolis Dispatch, Inc., 301 N.E.2d 791 (Ind.App.1973); Moore v. Funk, 155 Ind.App. 545, 293 N.E.2d 534 (1973); Hedgecock v. Orlosky, 220 Ind. 390, 44 N.E.2d 93 (1942); Kneeshaw v. Detroit United Ry., 169 Mich. 697, 135 N.W. 903 In ......
-
Easley v. Williams
... ... Before an instruction is proper there must be sufficient evidence in the record to support that instruction. Moore v. Funk (1973), Ind.App., 293 N.E.2d 534 ... The choice of ways doctrine is applicable only where there are alternative paths to ... ...