Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gross v. Gross

June 29, 1948

GROSS ET AL.
v.
GROSS ET AL.



Author: Major

Before MAJOR and MINTON, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.

MAJOR, Circuit Judge.

This joint action was brought by William Gross, Mrs. William Gross, Emma Gross and Charles Steinfest against Frank T. Stroik and Home Mutual Insurance Company, a corporation, defendants, to recover damages for personal injuries incurred in an automobile collision between the car driven by Stroik and one driven by the plaintiff, William Gross, in which the other plaintiffs were passengers. Thereafter, the Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company was, on motion of Stroik and his insurance carrier, impleaded as a defendant as the insurer of the plaintiff, William Gross.

The jury found the plaintiff, William Gross, negligent and to blame for the accident to the extent of 20%, and the defendant, Stroik, negligent and to blame for the accident to the extent of 80%, and that the other three plaintiffs (passengers in the Gross car) did not assume the risk of negligence on the part of William Gross, their driver.

The judgment appealed from is predicated upon a special verdict of the jury.The judgment in favor of the plaintiff, William Gross, is against the defendant, Stroik, and his insurer, and that in favor of the plaintiffs, Mrs. William Gross, Emma Gross and Charles Steinfest, is against both the defendant, Stroik, and his insurer, and the plaintiff, William Gross, and his insurer. It is only the joint judgment against the defendant, Stroik, and the plaintiff, William Gross, and their insurers in favor of the other plaintiffs (passengers in the car of William Gross) that is involved in this appeal.

There is, therefore, no question here as to the negligence of the defendant, Stroik, or of his liability or of that of his insurer. It is only the liability of the plaintiff, William Gross, and his insurer to the other plaintiffs (passengers in his car) with which we are concerned. The parties before this court, therefore, are William Gross and his insurer as appellants, and Mrs. William Gross, Emma Gross and Charles Steinfest, and the insurer of Frank Stroik as appellees.

The special verdict was in the form of answers to certain specific questions. By such answers the jury found that both William Gross and Stroik were negligent in the manner of operating their automobiles and that the collision was the natural result of such negligence. The sole question and answer upon which the liability of William Gross and his insurer to the other plaintiffs (passengers in Gross' car) is predicated is as follows:

"If you find this collision was the result of negligence on the part of William Gross, then answer this question:

"Sixth Question: Did the plaintiffs, Mrs. William Gross, Emma Gross, and Charles Steinfest, assume the risk of such negligence on the part of William Gross?"

To this question the jury answered as to each of the passenger plaintiffs, "No."

While numerous questions are raised and discussed, we are of the view that only two questions need be considered:

(1) Is the credible evidence sufficient to support the jury's finding of negligence on the part of William Gross? If not, the court after verdict should have allowed the motion to change the jury's answer to the question inquiring as to his negligence from "Yes" to "No."

(2) Even though the plaintiff, Gross, was negligent as found, was such negligence sufficient to authorize a judgment against him and his insurer in favor of the other plaintiffs (passengers in Gross' car)?

On January 18, 1946, at about 5:30 p.m., William Gross, with his wife, Mrs. William Gross, his mother Emma Gross, and Charles Steinfest as passengers, were driving in William Gross' 1940 four-door Chrysler sedan in a southeasterly direction on State Trunk Highway 10, an eighteen foot concrete highway. At the same time and place, Stroik was driving his automobile in a northwesterly direction on the same highway, with August Bleskey as a passenger, intending to turn left into an intersection town road that led off to the south toward Bleskey's home. It was a clear night, there was no other ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.