Eldridge v. Schierman

Idaho Supreme Court

Eldridge v. Schierman

612 P.2d 562, 101 Idaho 325, 1980 Ida. LEXIS 475

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJune 12, 1980

DocketNo. 12525

StatusPublished

This text of 612 P.2d 562 (Eldridge v. Schierman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eldridge v. Schierman, 612 P.2d 562, 101 Idaho 325, 1980 Ida. LEXIS 475 (Idaho 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEPARD, Justice.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff-appellant Eldridge from an order denying a motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of defendants-respondents. We affirm.

Plaintiff brought this action for personal injuries and property damages sustained in an automobile-motorcycle collision. The jury verdict allocated 55% of the negligence to the plaintiff and 45% of the negligence to the defendant. Hence, plaintiff was denied any recovery. Plaintiff-appellant argues that the jury verdict is not supported by the evidence in that in view of the physical facts surrounding the accident, it could not have occurred as asserted by defendant-respondent at trial. We disagree. The record reveals substantial, although conflicting, evidence regarding the issues of negligence and proximate cause and such were, therefore, clear factual questions for resolution by the jury. E. g., Gavica v. Hansen, 101 Idaho 60, 608 P.2d 861 (1980); Smith v. City of Preston, 97 Idaho 295, 543 P.2d 848 (1975).

Affirmed. Costs to respondent.

DONALDSON, C. J., and BAKES, McFADDEN and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHEPARD, Justice.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff-appellant Eldridge from an order denying a motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of defendants-respondents. We affirm.

Plaintiff brought this action for personal injuries and property damages sustained in an automobile-motorcycle collision. The jury verdict allocated 55% of the negligence to the plaintiff and 45% of the negligence to the defendant. Hence, plaintiff was denied any recovery. Plaintiff-appellant argues that the jury verdict is not supported by the evidence in that in view of the physical facts surrounding the accident, it could not have occurred as asserted by defendant-respondent at trial. We disagree. The record reveals substantial, although conflicting, evidence regarding the issues of negligence and proximate cause and such were, therefore, clear factual questions for resolution by the jury. E. g., Gavica v. Hansen, 101 Idaho 60, 608 P.2d 861 (1980); Smith v. City of Preston, 97 Idaho 295, 543 P.2d 848 (1975).

Affirmed. Costs to respondent.

DONALDSON, C. J., and BAKES, McFADDEN and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

612 P.2d 562, 101 Idaho 325, 1980 Ida. LEXIS 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eldridge-v-schierman-idaho-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack