Newman v. Coleman

Idaho Supreme Court

Newman v. Coleman

524 P.2d 541, 96 Idaho 80, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 383

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 3, 1974

Docket11077

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 524 P.2d 541 (Newman v. Coleman) 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

Newman v. Coleman, 524 P.2d 541, 96 Idaho 80, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 383 (Idaho 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

McQUADE, Justice.

This action for damages for personal injuries arises out of a two car collision that occurred on State Highway 16, six miles south of Emmett, Idaho. The accident occurred when a 1959 Simca automobile driven by the defendant-respondent, Carla M. Coleman, the daughter of Arnold W. and Mary J. Coleman, suddenly crossed the center line and hit a pickup proceeding in the opposite direction on a straight section of the highway on a clear day. Sherman E. Newman, Jr. and Anna Marie Newman, the two children of Sherman E. Newman, Sr. and Anna Marie Newman, were passengers in the Simca automobile. Two weeks before the accident the defendants-respondents, Arnold W. and Mary J. Coleman, purchased the Simca, and it had been driven several times before the accident with no apparent mechanical defects.

Sherman E. Newman, Jr. and his parents, Sherman E. Newman, Sr. and Anna Marie Newman, filed an action to recover for the personal injuries of Sherman E. Newman, Jr. and to recover for his parents’ loss of his companionship. Anna Marie Newman and her parents also filed an action to recover for her personal injuries and for her parents’ loss of her companionship. The two actions were consolidated for trial. A jury trial was held and a verdict was returned in favor of the respondents. The appellants moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and alternatively for a new trial. The trial court denied the motions and the appellants filed this appeal from the judgment based on the jury’s verdict and the judgment denying their motions.

While this action was pending, the case of Thompson v. Hagan¹ was decided which held that the automobile guest statute ² was unconstitutional. The majority opinion in that case stated that the ruling was applicable to all pending actions which would include this action making it error to submit the guest statute defense to the jury.

The jury returned a special verdict which separately held that the respondent, Carla Coleman, was not negligent, nor grossly negligent, and that Sherman, Jr. and Anna Marie Newman were guests. It is argued that since the jury found no negligence on the part of Carla Coleman, the question [82]*82of the applicability of the guest statute is irrelevant. The trial court gave thirty-two instructions to the jury of which ten involved the guest statute or gross negligence. The question of whether the guest statute barred recovery by Sherman, Jr. and Anna Marie Newman was a major issue in the trial.' The instructions dealing with the guest statute and gross negligence were incorrect statements of the law in view of Thompson v. Hagan decided since this action was tried in the district court. This action is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Costs to appellants.

DONALDSON, McFADDEN, and BAKES, JJ., concur.

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

McQUADE, Justice.

This action for damages for personal injuries arises out of a two car collision that occurred on State Highway 16, six miles south of Emmett, Idaho. The accident occurred when a 1959 Simca automobile driven by the defendant-respondent, Carla M. Coleman, the daughter of Arnold W. and Mary J. Coleman, suddenly crossed the center line and hit a pickup proceeding in the opposite direction on a straight section of the highway on a clear day. Sherman E. Newman, Jr. and Anna Marie Newman, the two children of Sherman E. Newman, Sr. and Anna Marie Newman, were passengers in the Simca automobile. Two weeks before the accident the defendants-respondents, Arnold W. and Mary J. Coleman, purchased the Simca, and it had been driven several times before the accident with no apparent mechanical defects.

Sherman E. Newman, Jr. and his parents, Sherman E. Newman, Sr. and Anna Marie Newman, filed an action to recover for the personal injuries of Sherman E. Newman, Jr. and to recover for his parents’ loss of his companionship. Anna Marie Newman and her parents also filed an action to recover for her personal injuries and for her parents’ loss of her companionship. The two actions were consolidated for trial. A jury trial was held and a verdict was returned in favor of the respondents. The appellants moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and alternatively for a new trial. The trial court denied the motions and the appellants filed this appeal from the judgment based on the jury’s verdict and the judgment denying their motions.

While this action was pending, the case of Thompson v. Hagan¹ was decided which held that the automobile guest statute ² was unconstitutional. The majority opinion in that case stated that the ruling was applicable to all pending actions which would include this action making it error to submit the guest statute defense to the jury.

The jury returned a special verdict which separately held that the respondent, Carla Coleman, was not negligent, nor grossly negligent, and that Sherman, Jr. and Anna Marie Newman were guests. It is argued that since the jury found no negligence on the part of Carla Coleman, the question [82]*82of the applicability of the guest statute is irrelevant. The trial court gave thirty-two instructions to the jury of which ten involved the guest statute or gross negligence. The question of whether the guest statute barred recovery by Sherman, Jr. and Anna Marie Newman was a major issue in the trial.' The instructions dealing with the guest statute and gross negligence were incorrect statements of the law in view of Thompson v. Hagan decided since this action was tried in the district court. This action is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Costs to appellants.

DONALDSON, McFADDEN, and BAKES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

524 P.2d 541, 96 Idaho 80, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-coleman-idaho-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack