GENNRICH v. SCHRANK

Action to recover damages resulting from an automobile collision. The complaint contained two causes of action, one by Irene Gennrich to recover damages for personal injuries and one by her husband, August Gennrich, to recover for damage to his automobile, medical expenses incurred in the treatment of his wife, and for loss of services of his wife. By their answer the defendants denied negligence on the part of Schrank in operating his automobile, and by way of counterclaim sought contribution against Gennrich in the event Schrank was found to be causally negligent.

On June 23, 1956, one Wayne C. Stewart drove an automobile out of a tavern driveway on the west side of State Trunk Highway 51. His car stopped because of mechanical failure, blocking about five feet of the west lane of traffic. At the time Gennrich was driving his automobile in a southerly direction upon said highway. He testified that because there was northbound traffic upon the highway he brought his automobile to a stop about one car length north of the Stewart car. Mrs. Gennrich was one of four passengers in her husband's automobile and was sitting in the rear seat on the right side. The defendant Schrank was also driving in a southerly direction upon such highway. His automobile struck the rear end of the Gennrich automobile, which in turn collided with the Stewart automobile.

At the close of the testimony Gennrich moved for a directed verdict dismissing the counterclaim of the defendants. This motion was granted by the court.

The jury, by special verdict, found that the defendant Schrank was causally negligent in the operation of his automobile with respect to speed, management and control, and lookout. The court determined the damages sustained by August Gennrich for damage to his automobile and for the medical expenses incurred in the treatment of his wife. The jury found that Gennrich sustained damages in the sum of $500 for the loss of services, society, and companionship of his wife. The jury further found that the plaintiff Irene Gennrich sustained damages in the sum of $16,500 by reason of said collision.

Following motions after the verdict, the court determined that the amount of damages found by the jury for Irene Gennrich was excessive. A new trial on damages only was ordered unless the plaintiff Irene Gennrich elected to have judgment entered in her favor in the sum of $12,000. She did so elect. A judgment dated January 16, 1958, was entered on January 27, 1958, in favor of August Gennrich and against the defendants in the amount of $1,074.98, and in favor of Irene Gennrich and against the defendants in the sum of $12,000, together with their costs and disbursements. The judgment further dismissed the counterclaim of the defendants against August Gennrich. The defendants appealed from said judgment.

BROADFOOT, J.

The defendants contend that the trial court erred in determining that a jury issue was not presented by the evidence as to the negligence of the plaintiff August Gennrich with respect to lookout and management and control.

The repair bill for the Gennrich automobile was put in evidence. Among other items replaced was the front bumper and grille bar. Schrank testified that just before the impact he was going up a slight grade and that he had reduced his speed to five miles per hour. Further, the plaintiff August Gennrich testified that he had his foot on the brake while his car was stopped.

The defendants argue that it would have been physically impossible under these circumstances for the Gennrich automobile to have been pushed forward into the stalled car and suffer the amount of front-end damage indicated by the repair bill. From these circumstances it is argued that the jury might infer that there had been a collision between the front end of the Gennrich automobile and the stalled vehicle prior to the accident from which this action arose.

All of the direct testimony by the witnesses for the plaintiffs is that the Gennrich automobile stopped from 12 feet to a car length from the stalled automobile and that there was no contact with it until after the Gennrich automobile was struck by Schrank. A portion of Schrank's testimony stated in narrative form in the defendants' appendix is as follows:

"I wouldn't know if I would have been able to stop if I had applied my brakes real hard when I was 75 to 100 feet away and his brake lights went on. I imagine I could have stopped if I would have known he came to a drive as slow as he did. When I first saw his brake lights go on, I was 75 to 100 feet behind him. If I had applied my brakes real hard like I did when 20 or 25 feet behind him, I think I could have stopped before bumping him. I did bump him. I don't know if I shoved his car ahead enough so that it bumped that next car that was stalled in the traffic lane. I pushed it ahead some."

The record does not disclose the position of the three cars after the accident, or the damage to the stalled automobile. A county traffic-patrol officer testified that the Schrank automobile left skid marks on the pavement 56 feet in length. These skid marks started about 90 feet north of the driveway from the tavern and extended south that distance. He further testified that the skid marks stopped two or three car lengths north of the driveway. It is fair to assume that the south end of the skid marks marked the forward progress of the rear wheels of the Schrank automobile and would indicate that the front end of the Schrank automobile struck the rear of the Gennrich automobile about two car lengths north of the driveway. In other words, that the front end of the Gennrich automobile was about one car length from the stalled automobile. The repair bill indicates clearly that the major damage to the Gennrich automobile was to its rear end. It is evident from all of the testimony that the Schrank automobile was going faster than five miles per hour at the time of the collision. Neither the testimony nor the physical facts would support an inference that Gennrich had struck the stalled car prior to being struck by Schrank.

Mrs. Gennrich testified that when the collision occurred she was thrown ahead and then back into the seat again. Mrs. Gennrich's claim for damages was based on a whiplash injury to her neck. There was medical testimony to the effect that in a rear-end collision her head would have been thrown back and then forward. The defendants argue that from this testimony the jury could also infer that the Gennrich car collided with the stalled automobile before the collision with the Schrank automobile. Her testimony as to just what happened at the time of the rear-end collision was not definite and positive. At one time she said, "It went awful quick." Again she stated, "I thought I was throwed ahead but that happened so quickly I don't know how you are going to explain." Again she stated she knew she went ahead; she knew it threw her ahead but it happened quickly; she did not know how to explain it any differently but she knew that it jerked her back.

Her testimony must be viewed in the light of the fact that the Gennrich automobile was stopped a car length from the stalled vehicle at the time of the Schrank collision. As he approached the stalled vehicle Gennrich applied his brakes. This could have caused a forward motion by Mrs. Gennrich. In any event, her testimony would not warrant an inference by the jury that the Gennrich car had already struck the stalled vehicle before being hit by Schrank.

Upon the entire record the trial court was justified in dismissing the counterclaim.

The main contention upon this appeal was as to the damages awarded to Mrs. Gennrich. The trial court determined that the amount awarded to her by the jury was excessive. A review of the record indicates that the court was correct. There was some confusion as to the options to be offered to the parties in the hope of avoiding a new trial as to damages. Because of this confusion evidenced by the record a proper option was not submitted. The trial court finally determined that $12,000 was the least amount that an unprejudiced jury properly instructed would probably assess under the evidence. As a matter of fact that was about the highest amount that could have been sustained under the evidence. There was evidence which, if believed by the jury, would have supported a much-lower award.

Under the circumstances revealed by the record we do not feel that the matter should be resubmitted to the trial court for a proper submission of an option or options. Since the damages were excessive we deem that a new trial on the question of Mrs. Gennrich's damages only must be held. No complaint is made as to the award to Mr. Gennrich and that part of the judgment is affirmed.

By the Court. — That part of the judgment dismissing the counterclaim of the defendants, and that part of the judgment awarding damages and costs to August Gennrich are affirmed. That part of the judgment awarding damages and costs to Irene Gennrich is reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial only with respect to damages sustained by her in the collision.