Knape v. Livingston Oil Co. ( 1964 )

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Price, J.:

This was an action to recover for personal injuries and property damage arising out of an automobile collision. Judgment was for plaintiff, and defendant has appealed.

The only question presented is whether the special findings of the jury compel a judgment for defendant notwithstanding the general verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

A brief summary of the facts is sufficient to show the picture.

At about 8:30 on the morning of June 21, 1960, plaintiff left home and proceeded to drive his car in an easterly direction over a dirt township road with which he was completely familiar. The road was about seventeen or eighteen feet wide and was quite hilly. He proceeded up and down three hills within about the first one and one-half miles. He then proceeded up a rather sharp hill which obstructed his vision to the east until he reached the crest. As he topped the crest he saw a pickup truck coming up the hill from the east. He applied his brakes and skidded in an easterly direction down the hill for approximately forty-three feet before the collision. Plaintiff’s car was damaged and he sustained personal injuries. The driver of the pickup truck, which was owned by defendant company, died the next day as the result of the collision and without making any statement. The day was clear and the narrow dirt road was dry. Due to the nature and width of the road there were not two so-called well-defined traffic lanes. The evidence was to the effect that immediately prior to and at the time of the collision both vehicles were being driven in the middle of the road.

The jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $4,510.68, and also returned the following special findings:

“1. Do you find that the driver of Defendant’s pickup truck negligently operated his vehicle in such a manner as to be a contributing cause of the accident in question?

“Answer: Yes.

“If you answer the preceding question ‘yes’ you need not answer questions 2 to 8 inclusive.

“Question No. 9: Where, with reference to the center of the road, were the left wheels of the plaintiff, Knape’s car prior to the application of brakes by the plaintiff?

“Answer: Left (North) of center line.

“Question No. 10: At the time of impact, where with reference to the center line of the road were the left wheels of the plaintiff, Knape’s car?

“Answer: Approximately on or to the left of the imaginary center line.

“Question No. 11: Where, with reference to the hill crest, did the collision or impact occur:

“Answer: East.

“Question No. 12: Was the plaintiff, Knape’s, vision to the east obstructed by the hill crest:

“Answer: Yes.

“Question No. IS: At what rate of speed was plaintiff driving immediately prior to the time he first saw the pickup truck?

“Answer: 30 to 40 mi per hour.

“Question No. 14: What was the maximum safe rate of speed under the conditions existing for vehicles proceeding over the hill crest?

“Answer: SO to 40 mi per hour.

“Question No. 15: Do you find the plaintiff guilty of any negligence which was the proximate cause of the collision?

“Answer: No.”

Defendant’s motions for judgment on the special findings notwithstanding the general verdict, and for a new trial, being overruled— it has appealed.

Although nine specifications of error are asserted, in its brief and upon oral argument of the appeal defendant relies solely upon the proposition that the special findings compel a judgment in its favor, and that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for judgment notwithstanding the general verdict.

Refore discussing the specific point in issue, attention is called to a few general rules applicable to questions relating to special findings and general verdicts:

A motion for judgment on the special findings notwithstanding the general verdict concedes, for the purpose of the motion, that the special findings are supported by the evidence. A general verdict imports a finding upon all of the issues in the case not inconsistent with the special findings. In considering special findings the court is not permitted to isolate one and ignore others, but all are to be considered together, and if one interpretation leads to inconsistency and another to harmony with the verdict, the latter is to be adopted. If special findings cannot be reconciled with the general verdict and are sufficiently full and complete in themselves, and are not inconsistent in themselves, judgment must follow the special findings. (Fralick v. Kansas City Public Ser. Co., 168 Kan. 134, 137, syl. 1, 211 P. 2d 443; Metzinger v. Subera, 175 Kan. 542, 546, 266 P. 2d 287, and the many cases cited in those opinions. [See also the dissenting opinion in the Metzinger case at p. 549.])

It also is the rule that general findings in the nature of conclusions, if contradicted by special or detailed findings, cannot prevail, but are controlled by and must yield to such detailed findings of ultimate facts. (Harrison v. Travelers Mutual Cas. Co., 156 Kan. 492, 498, syl. 4, 134 P. 2d 681; Leonard v. Kansas City Public Ser. Co., 167 Kan. 51, syl. 4, 204 P. 2d 760; Metzinger v. Subera, above, syl. 3; Scott v. Bennett, 181 Kan. 410, 414, 312 P. 2d 224; Taylor v. Johnson, 186 Kan. 561, 563, 352 P. 2d 436, and the many cases cited in those opinions.)

With respect to the last-mentioned rule, defendant contends that finding No. 15, which absolved plaintiff of any negligence which was the proximate cause of the collision, is general in nature and amounts to no more than a conclusion, and therefore is controlled by and must yield to the detailed specific findings Nos. 9, 10 and 12.

Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that proximate cause always is a question for the jury; that it is not necessarily negligence as a matter of law to drive on the wrong side of the road, and that one may be negligent and still not be barred from recovery unless such negligence contributes to the collision as a proximate cause.

As abstract statements of law the correctness of the foregoing contentions of plaintiff is not to be disputed, but we believe that under the facts of this case and the specific findings of the jury such contentions are of no help to him.

In Harrison v. Travelers Mutual Cas. Co., above, each of four plaintiffs sought damages resulting from a rear-end collision between a car occupied by plaintiffs and a transport truck. The car was being driven by plaintiff Webb. The general verdict was for plaintiffs. In special finding No. 1 the jury found that the operators of defendants’ truck were guilty of negligence. In finding No. 12 the jury absolved Webb of any negligence which was one of the proximate causes of the collision, and in finding No. 15 found that Webb had maintained a reasonable lookout for his own safety. Other detailed and more specific findings were made which established that Webb was guilty of negligence. In the appeal by defendants it was contended the court erred in overruling their motion for judgment on the special findings notwithstanding the general verdict for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argued that finding No. 12, which absolved the driver of the car of any negligence which was one of the proximate causes of the collision, conclusively settled the matter in their favor. This court disagreed and said:

“Appellees argue finding number 12 conclusively settles that question in their favor. With that contention we cannot agree. The finding is definitely general in character and is in the nature of a conclusion. It is an expression of the jury’s conclusion from facts found in detail (citing). Such general findings, or conclusions, if contradicted by special or detailed findings, cannot prevail but are controlled by, and must yield to, the special or detailed findings of ultimate facts. (Citing.) Finding number 15 is largely of the same general character and it likewise must yield to special findings of fact, if any, which contradict it.” (p.498.)

The opinion then pointed out and discussed specific findings which definitely established negligence on the part of Webb, the driver of the car, and it was held that defendants’ motion for judgment on the special findings notwithstanding the general verdict for plaintiffs should have been sustained.

In the case before us, in the petition and answer, each driver was charged with driving on the wrong side of the road. In finding No. 1 the jury found that defendant’s driver negligently operated his vehicle in such a manner as to be a contributing cause of the collision. From the evidence the inference is clear that by such finding the jury found that he was driving in the middle or partly on the left side of the road. So much for defendant’s driver.

The evidence further showed that as plaintiff topped the crest of the sharp hill, and at the time of impact, he also was driving in the middle or partly on the left side of the road — and the jury so found in findings Nos. 9 and 10. In other words, both drivers were found guilty of the same act of negligence.

Under the facts of this case it is clear that finding No. 15 is general in nature and amounts to nothing more than a conclusion. It clearly is contradicted by specific detailed findings Nos. 9 and 10, and therefore is controlled by and must yield to such detailed findings of ultimate facts. Under the provisions of G. S. 1949, 60-2918, and the many decisions of this court, when special findings of fact are inconsistent with the general verdict the former control the latter, and judgment is to be entered accordingly.

The judgment is therefore reversed with directions to sustain defendant’s motion for judgment on the special findings notwithstanding the general verdict.