Pauley v. Zarbock

Utah Supreme Court

Pauley v. Zarbock

504 P.2d 999, 29 Utah 2d 30, 1972 Utah LEXIS 1021

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 26, 1972

DocketNo. 12807

StatusPublished

This text of 504 P.2d 999 (Pauley v. Zarbock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pauley v. Zarbock, 504 P.2d 999, 29 Utah 2d 30, 1972 Utah LEXIS 1021 (Utah 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a no cause of action judgment in a rear-end auto collision case, where the trial court said defendant was negligent as a matter of law, but put to the jury the question of proximate cause. The jury found for the defendant, to the effect that the latter was not the proximate cause.

The evidence here was controversial. We have said that negligence, contributory negligence and proximate cause are jury questions. Believable evidence shows that plaintiff has had accidents before this case, and one after, where she suffered injuries requiring some sort of medication.

Plaintiff recounts parts of the record favorable to her position. We review the case, not in a light favorable to plaintiff, but to the conclusion of the jury. Doing [31]*31so, we agree with the jury verdict, which, on believable, admissible evidence, fully supports the verdict. Affirmed with costs to respondent.

CALLISTER, C. J., and TUCKETT, ELLETT and CROCKETT, JJ„ concur.

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

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a no cause of action judgment in a rear-end auto collision case, where the trial court said defendant was negligent as a matter of law, but put to the jury the question of proximate cause. The jury found for the defendant, to the effect that the latter was not the proximate cause.

The evidence here was controversial. We have said that negligence, contributory negligence and proximate cause are jury questions. Believable evidence shows that plaintiff has had accidents before this case, and one after, where she suffered injuries requiring some sort of medication.

Plaintiff recounts parts of the record favorable to her position. We review the case, not in a light favorable to plaintiff, but to the conclusion of the jury. Doing [31]*31so, we agree with the jury verdict, which, on believable, admissible evidence, fully supports the verdict. Affirmed with costs to respondent.

CALLISTER, C. J., and TUCKETT, ELLETT and CROCKETT, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 P.2d 999, 29 Utah 2d 30, 1972 Utah LEXIS 1021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pauley-v-zarbock-utah-1972.