Ogilvie v. Mangels, No. 41045

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtJACKSON; PRICE
Citation183 Kan. 733,332 P.2d 581
Docket NumberNo. 41045
Decision Date06 December 1958
PartiesBetty OGILVIE, Appellee, v. Joan T. MANGELS, Appellant.

Page 581

332 P.2d 581
183 Kan. 733
Betty OGILVIE, Appellee,
v.
Joan T. MANGELS, Appellant.
No. 41045.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Dec. 6, 1958.

Page 582

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where appellant fails to assign as error the order overruling a motion for new trial, the Supreme Court is sharply limited in its review of the case and cannot consider objections to trial errors or questions of the weight of evidence looking toward the granting of a new trial.

2. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under the common law and as defined by G.S.1949, 60-3119, reaches only the pleadings and verdict; such a motion does not raise questions as to the evidence.

3. Where a defendant demurs to the plaintiff's evidence and the demurrer is overruled, if defendant then introduces his own evidence, as is his right under G.S.1949, 60-2909, Third, it is then necessary for him to move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, if he still maintains that the case should be withdrawn

Page 583

from the jury (Ziegelasch v. Durr, 183 Kan. 233, 326 P.2d 295).

James B. Pearson, Mission, argued the cause, and Bernis G. Terry, Mission, was with him on the briefs for appellant.

George A. Lowe, Olathe, argued the cause, and H. Charles Parrish, Olathe, was with him on the brief for appellee.

JACKSON, Justice.

The appellee brought an action in the court below to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered due to the careless and negligent driving of an automobile by the appellant. Appellant answered by general denial and further alleged that plaintiff's injuries, if any, had been caused by plaintiff's own negligence. The reply put the case at issue.

A trial to court and jury resulted in a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $10,500. No special questions were submitted to the jury. The trial court overruled the defendant's motion for new trial and also a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Defendant has appealed to this court.

We shall continue to refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant.

The accident which gave rise to this action occurred at the intersection[183 Kan. 734] of Santa Fe Drive and 76th Street in Overland Park, Johnson County. Santa Fe Drive is a north and south street and 76th street runs east and west. The streets intersect at approximately right angles. It is established that there were no stop signs at the intersection, and further that on the northeast corner of the intersection a high hedge ran from the east line of Sante Fe along 76th street quite effectively obscuring the north view of cars approaching the intersection on 76th street. Likewise, drivers approaching from the north on Santa Fe could not see automobiles approaching from the east on 76th street.

From the testimony of the two drivers the accident involved in this appeal happened as follows:

Plaintiff was driving a Studebaker automobile west on 76th street approaching Santa Fe Drive at approximately 4:15 p. m. on May 28, 1955. She was unfamiliar with the intersection, but finding that she could not see cars approaching from the north on Santa Fe, stopped and eased out trying to see up the street to the north. Her car had a standard transmission and she had placed the car in low and proceeded at a speed of three or four miles per hour. She did not see defendant's car until her car was entering the northwest quadrant of the intersection when defendant drove her car in front of plaintiff's car and the accident occurred. Defendant's car was struck on the left side and skidded more than one hundred feet after the accident. Defendant contends she was knocked to one side by the force of the impact and lost control of her car, and that the skid marks showed the defendant's car was skidding sideways. Plaintiff's car seems to have stopped at the point of collision.

Defendant testified that she was driving a Mercury automobile and approached the intersection from the north on Santa Fe at a speed which she judged to be twenty-five miles per hour; that she knew of the hedge on the corner and that it was a bad corner to see around, and that she 'couldn't see around it.' That she slowed her car as she approached the corner at a point 'fifty or maybe sixty or maybe seventy feet' from the corner; she looked both ways and resumed her speed, judged to be twenty-five miles per hour, as she entered the intersection; at no time before the collision did she see the plaintiff.

The above account of the testimony of the parties is somewhat superfluous in this appeal since the state of the record actually prevents this court from considering the question of whether the learned [183 Kan. 735] trial court was justified in approving the verdict of the jury and entering judgment for the

Page 584

plaintiff thereon. We do not intend to imply that we have doubt about the trial court's action, however.

It should be noted first, that the defendant has not specified as error the overruling of her motion for new trial, and in her brief at no time seeks a new trial. Of course, this sharply limits our power to review the case.

In Lake Superior Lbr. Co. v. Homestead B. & L. Ass'n, 139 Kan. 565, 32 P.2d 202, the syllabus reads as follows:

'Where no motion for a new trial is filed, review on appeal is limited to the question whether the judgment is supported by the pleadings and findings of fact, and inquiry...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Russell v. May, No. 111,671
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • August 25, 2017
    ...the power of a trial judge to withdraw a case from the jury upon a point of law under proper procedure." Ogilvie v. Mangels , 183 Kan. 733, 738, 332 P.2d 581 (1958). These cases lead us to question whether an error in granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law as to some claims ......
  • Weber v. Wilson, No. 41717
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • November 12, 1960
    ...in support of his case (Bishop v. Huffman, 177 Kan. 256, 278 P.2d 588; Ziegelasch v. Durr, 183 Kan. 233, 326 P.2d 295; Ogilvie v. Mangels, 183 Kan. 733, 332 P.2d 581, and cases cited therein; In re Estate of Rogers, 184 Kan. 24, 334 P.2d 830; McCarthy v. Tetyak, 184 Kan. 126, 334 P.2d 379; ......
  • A. C. Ferrellgas Corp. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., No. 41960
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 21, 1961
    ...the evidence by a motion for a directed verdict in defendant's favor (Ziegelasch v. Durr, 183 Kan. 233, 326 P.2d 295; Ogilvie v. Mangels, 183 Kan. 733, 332 P.2d 581; In re Estate of Rogers, 184 Kan. 24, 334 P.2d 830; McCarthy v. Tetyak, 184 Kan. 126, at page 132, 334 P.2d 379, at page 384; ......
  • Reda v. Lowe, No. 41489
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • July 10, 1959
    ...at the close of all the evidence presented in the trial court (Ziegelasch v. Durr, 183 Kan. 233, 326 P.2d 295, and Ogilvie v. Mangels, 183 Kan. 733, 332 P.2d 581), the defendant is entitled to a review of his demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence by reason of the plaintiff's demurrer to the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Russell v. May, No. 111,671
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • August 25, 2017
    ...the power of a trial judge to withdraw a case from the jury upon a point of law under proper procedure." Ogilvie v. Mangels , 183 Kan. 733, 738, 332 P.2d 581 (1958). These cases lead us to question whether an error in granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law as to some claims ......
  • Weber v. Wilson, No. 41717
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • November 12, 1960
    ...in support of his case (Bishop v. Huffman, 177 Kan. 256, 278 P.2d 588; Ziegelasch v. Durr, 183 Kan. 233, 326 P.2d 295; Ogilvie v. Mangels, 183 Kan. 733, 332 P.2d 581, and cases cited therein; In re Estate of Rogers, 184 Kan. 24, 334 P.2d 830; McCarthy v. Tetyak, 184 Kan. 126, 334 P.2d 379; ......
  • A. C. Ferrellgas Corp. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., No. 41960
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • January 21, 1961
    ...the evidence by a motion for a directed verdict in defendant's favor (Ziegelasch v. Durr, 183 Kan. 233, 326 P.2d 295; Ogilvie v. Mangels, 183 Kan. 733, 332 P.2d 581; In re Estate of Rogers, 184 Kan. 24, 334 P.2d 830; McCarthy v. Tetyak, 184 Kan. 126, at page 132, 334 P.2d 379, at page 384; ......
  • Reda v. Lowe, No. 41489
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • July 10, 1959
    ...at the close of all the evidence presented in the trial court (Ziegelasch v. Durr, 183 Kan. 233, 326 P.2d 295, and Ogilvie v. Mangels, 183 Kan. 733, 332 P.2d 581), the defendant is entitled to a review of his demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence by reason of the plaintiff's demurrer to the ......
  • 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