Spain v. Griffith
| Decision Date | 10 October 1933 |
| Docket Number | Civil 3324 |
| Citation | 42 Ariz. 304,25 P.2d 551 |
| Parties | LAWRENCE SPAIN and SAM SCHUSTER, Appellants, v. DOLLIE P. GRIFFITH, Appellee |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.
Mr. C H. Young and Mr. Paul J. Feehan, for Appellants.
Mr. J Fred Hoover, for Appellee.
Dollie P. Griffith, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against Lawrence Spain and Sam Schuster, hereinafter called defendants, for damages to certain real and personal property owned by her, which damages she claimed were caused by the negligence of Schuster in driving an automobile bus belonging to Spain. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $1,708, and from the order overruling the motion for new trial and the judgment this appeal has been taken.
The undisputed facts of the case are that a bus driven by Schuster ran into a building owned by plaintiff and damaged it to a considerable extent. It is not seriously disputed by defendants that the jury was justified in returning a verdict against them for some amount, their only contention on this appeal being that there is no evidence to support a verdict for the particular amount found, and that it was evidently based upon passion and prejudice rather than on the evidence.
It is of course, the invariable rule of this court that, where there is a dispute in the evidence from which reasonable men could arrive at different conclusions as to the ultimate facts, we will not disturb the findings of a trial court or the verdict of a jury because we do not agree with the conclusion reached. On the other hand, if there is no evidence in the record which would justify such a conclusion by the triers of fact, it is not only our right, but our duty, to set aside a verdict.
In order to determine the question before us, it is necessary that we review briefly certain portions of the evidence. There is no serious question that the damage to personal property did not exceed $100. The realty damaged consisted of a long building in an auto court in Yuma constructed of concrete blocks and containing eight separate apartments under the one roof. The bus ran into the apartment nearest the road, and there is no question but that it pretty thoroughly wrecked it. It is the contention of plaintiff that, in addition to injuring the first apartment, since the eight were constructed as one building, the shock injured all the others to such an extent that in order to restore them to their original condition it would be necessary in substance that the entire structure be torn down and rebuilt from the foundation up. In support of this contention she offered two and only two witnesses, the first being her husband, Daniel K. Griffith. He testified in some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acuna v. Kroack
...in the record to justify it." Styles v. Ceranski, 185 Ariz. 448, 450, 916 P.2d 1164, 1166 (App.1996), quoting Spain v. Griffith, 42 Ariz. 304, 305, 25 P.2d 551, 551 (1933); see also Min-A-Con Equip. Co. v. T.M.K. Constr. Co., 102 Ariz. 24, 25, 424 P.2d 152, 153 (1967); Pierce v. Lopez, 16 A......
-
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix
...justify such a conclusion by the triers of fact, it is not only our right, but our duty, to set aside a verdict. Spain v. Griffith, 42 Ariz. 304, 305, 25 P.2d 551, 551 (1933). We conclude that there is no evidence in this record which would justify a verdict finding the City seventy-five pe......
-
Acuna v. Kroack, 2 CA-CV 2005-0049.
...in the record to justify it." Styles v. Ceranski, 185 Ariz. 448, 450, 916 P.2d 1164, 1166 (App.1996), quoting Spain v. Griffith, 42 Ariz. 304, 305, 25 P.2d 551, 551 (1933); see also Min-A-Con Equip. Co. v. T.M.K. Constr. Co., 102 Ariz. 24, 25, 424 P.2d 152, 153 (1967); Pierce v. Lopez, 16 A......
-
In re US Currency in Amount of $26,980.00
...449, ¶ 14, quoting Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 188 Ariz. 183, 196, 933 P.2d 1251, 1264 (App.1996), quoting Spain v. Griffith, 42 Ariz. 304, 305, 25 P.2d 551, 551 (1933) (emphasis ¶ 17 Pima County relies in large part on the reasoning and result in our first opinion in this case to suppor......