Newsom v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 19356
| Decision Date | 03 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 19356,No. 1,19356,1 |
| Parties | Nola Jane NEWSOM, Appellant, v. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY and Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company, Appellees |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Berry, Kincade & Allen, Terre Haute, for appellant Nola Jane newsom.
Bernard C. Craig and Craig & Craig, Brazil, for cross-appellant Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. Co.
George C. Forrey, III, Indianapolis, Kenneth C. Miller, Brazil, White, Raub & Forrey, Indianapolis, for appellees.
Appellant, plaintiff below, filed her complaint against appellees for alleged personal injuries which she claimed to have suffered when she was caused to fall on the floor of the Union Station in the City of Terre Haute by reason of the alleged negligence of the appellees in the maintenance of said floor. The cause was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of appellant, assessing damages in the amount of $15,000.00, and on which consistent judgment was entered.
Separate motions for new trial were filed by each of said appellees and both motions were sustained by the court which entered the following order:
'The court having heretofore examined the separate motions of defendants for new trial of this action and having heard oral argument thereon and having had said matter under advisement for ruling, now the court being advised sustains the separate motions of defendants for new trial of this action.'
From the granting of the motions for new trial, appellant has appealed, assigning as her only error that the trial court erred in sustaining the separate motions of appellees for a new trial.
The separate motions for new trial contained many psecifications of error. Without a statement of the claimed error which the court below recognized as the reason for the granting of the motions for new trial, both the appellant and this court are faced with the arduous task of not only considering each and every specification of error claimed by the appellees in their separate motions for new trial, but any other possible error which may have occurred during the proceedings and which was not specified in the motions. As stated recently by this Court in the case of Rife v. Karns (1962), Ind.App., 181 N.E.2d 239, 'good practice requires the trial court to state the reasons for its decision in writing when a motion for new trial is sustained,' and 'we deem it advisable to impose such a requirement at this time to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.A.W. v. State, Marion County Dept. of Public Welfare
...government had some authority to deviate from the budget and recommended tax levy, see id. § 12-1-11-4; Newsom v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 133 Ind.App. 582, 181 N.E.2d 240 (1962), its discretion was sharply circumscribed by the legal obligation to support local welfare services adequately......
-
Wildwood Manor, Inc. v. Gary Nat. Bank
...specific reasons for granting such new trial. Rife v. Karns (1962), 133 Ind.App. 226, 181 N.E.2d 239; Newsom v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co et al. (1962) 133 Ind.App. 582, 181 N.E.2d 240, * * The court complied with the request and on May 28, 1968, entered the following order on the motion for......
-
Weida v. Kegarise
... ... Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. v. Lundquist, 222 Ind. 359, 53 N.E.2d 338 (1944) (collecting cases) ... ...
-
Harper v. James
... ... Newsom v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company [246 IND 133] (1962), 133 Ind.App. 582, ... For example, see: Lincoln National Bank & Trust Co. v. Parker (1941), 110 Ind.App. 1, 34 N.E.2d 190, 37 N.E.2d 5; Brooks v ... ...