Sheldon v. Imhoff
| Decision Date | 09 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | 27373. |
| Citation | 198 Wash. 66,87 P.2d 103 |
| Parties | SHELDON et al. v. IMHOFF et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Suits by Eva E. Sheldon and Mrs. A. B. Fields against F. M. Imhoff and Mrs. F. M. Imhoff, husband and wife, and another, and by F. M. Imhoff and others against A. Althuser and another for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. In the second suit, A. Althuser and another filed a cross-action. The two suits were consolidated for trial. From a judgment of dismissal, Eva E. Sheldon and Mrs. A. B. Fields appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; E. D. Hodge, Judge.
John T McCutcheon, of Tacoma, for appellants.
Hayden Metzger & Blair, of Tacoma, for respondents.
Plaintiffs sustained injuries as the result of a head-on collision between a car in which they were passengers and a car driven by Howard Imhoff. The car driven by the latter was the property of his parents--the community composed of F. M Imhoff and wife. Plaintiffs instituted this suit, setting up separate causes of action against all three of the Imhoffs. The Imhoffs, together with one Dick Crain, who was a passenger in their car at the time of the collision instituted an action against one Althuser and one Knoell, the owner and driver, respectively, of the car in which plaintiffs in this action were passengers. Althuser and Knoell answered, setting up cross actions against the Imhoffs. The two suits were consolidated for trial. All told, there were seven causes of action submitted to the jury for separate verdicts.
In order to cover all the possible phases of the rights and liabilities of the respective parties under the evidence and applicable law, the court submitted to the jury eleven forms of verdict, as follows:
A. Althuser and Walter, Knoell, Defendants.
F. M. Inhoff and wife and Howard Imhoff, Defendants.
Verdict.
'We, the Jury in the above entitled case, find:
Concerning the return of these verdicts, the court instructed the jury as follows:
'Proper forms of verdict have been handed to you with these instructions and you will use the form of verdict which corresponds with your decision and have your foreman sign the same and return into court.
' In the event you find that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants should recover in either case, then your verdict should simply be for the defendants without fixing any damage and you should write 'none' in the blank opposite thereto.
'In the event you find for any of the plaintiffs, or defendants on their crosscomplaints, you will insert the amount you find they and each of them are entitled to, if any, and have your verdict signed by your foreman.' (Italics ours.)
In each of the eleven verdicts the jury wrote the word ' none' after the $ mark. Upon these verdicts the court entered judgments dismissing all causes of action involved in both suits. Mrs. Sheldon and Mrs. Fields appeal.
As we understand it, appellants' contention is that the verdicts are, in form and substance, for the plaintiffs upon the issues of negligence and contributory negligence; that since, under the undisputed evidence, they sustained substantial injuries, the finding of the jury that they suffered no [none] damages is inconsistent with the substance of the verdicts. Appellants cite a number of cases where new trials have been ordered because of inconsistency in verdicts on different causes of action ( Mitchell v. Rice, 183 Wash. 402, 48 P.2d 949), or where nominal or inadequate damages have been awarded in face of proof of substantial injuries ( Daigle v. Rudebeck, 154 Wash. 536, 282 P. 827; Hillman v. Seattle, 163 Wash. 401, 299 P. 514).
But we think these authorities are inapposite in the light of the italicized portion of the above quoted instruction. Under the instruction and form of verdicts submitted, we do not see how the jury could have indicated a finding for the defendants otherwise than by inserting the word ' none' after the $ marks. Indeed, there would be more substantial ground for appellants' position had those places been left blank. Verdicts similar in form and substance have been held by appellate courts of other states to be verdicts for defendants--and that, apparently, without the saving grace of explanatory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miles v. F. E. R. M. Enterprises, Inc.
...case" action, a zero dollars verdict shows a failure of the cause and would properly be a verdict for the defendant. Sheldon v. Imhoff, 198 Wash. 66, 87 P.2d 103 (1939), an automobile negligence action, is the only Washington case we have found which considered a verdict similar to the one ......
-
Baldwin v. Ewing
... ... Moore v. Evans, 24 Idaho 153, 132 P. 971; ... Halliman v. Prindle, Cal.App., 11 P.2d 426; Sheldon ... v. Imhoff, 198 Wash. 66, 87 P.2d 103 ... Indefiniteness ... of a verdict is not ground for granting a new trial ... Trask v. Boise ... ...
-
Cooper v. Woodruff
...Idaho 176, 204 P.2d 430; Chapin v. Foege, 296 Ill.App. 96, 15 N.E.2d 943; Schumock v. Meerian, 175 Kan. 8, 259 P.2d 173; Sheldon v. Imhoff, 198 Wash. 66, 87 P.2d 103; See also, 49 A.L.R.2d § 8, p. 1334. The issue of whether plaintiff's alleged injuries resulted from the collision was in dis......
-
Meenach v. Triple E Meats, Inc.
...verdict must be based upon the instructions and the record to "discern the intent of the jury ..." See also Sheldon v. Imhoff, 198 Wash. 66, 87 P.2d 103 (1939), in which the jury signed a plaintiff's verdict form but entered "none" in the spaces for dollar amounts. On appeal, the verdict wa......