Wry v. Dial

503 P.2d 979, 18 Ariz. App. 503, 1972 Ariz. App. LEXIS 910
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona
DecidedDecember 12, 1972
Docket2 CA-CIV 1251
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 503 P.2d 979 (Wry v. Dial) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wry v. Dial, 503 P.2d 979, 18 Ariz. App. 503, 1972 Ariz. App. LEXIS 910 (Ark. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

HOWARD, Judge.

This action arises out of a two-car accident which occurred on August 6, 1971. Liability was admitted and a four-day trial was had in the superior court on the issue of damages. Unanimous verdicts were rendered by the jury in favor of the appellees Joe H. Dial and Arrah L. Dial in the sum of $3,500,000 and in favor of the appellees David L. Hudnall and Patricia B. Hudnall in the sum of $401,750.

Appellants Wry filed a motion for new trial or for remittitur, both of which were denied by the trial judge. They appeal from the judgment and from the trial court’s denial of their motions.

Appellants present the following questions for review: (1) Was counsel for Dial and Hudnall guilty of prejudicial misconduct in statements made to the jury during trial? (2) If plaintiffs’ counsel was guilty of misconduct, did the trial rourt abuse its discretion in not granting a *505 -new trial even though defendants’ counsel 1 -made no objection to such misconduct prior ■to defendants’ motion for new trial? (3) 'Were the verdicts the result of passion and •prejudice on the part of the jury? (4) Were the verdicts so excessive as to re- • quire the trial court to order a remittitur ■'in each case? (5) Were the Hudnalls’ re- ■ quested instructions four and five erro-neous and prejudicial?

Because of the questions involved, we • deem it necessary to set forth the facts at 'length considered in the light most favor.able to upholding the verdict of the jury. 'They are as follows: On August 6, 1971, Joe Dial and Arrah Dial, husband and wife, were 32 and 29 years of age respectively. They had lived in Tucson for five years and had a one-year-old daughter. Arrah Dial was a graduate of the University of Redlands and had a master’s degree in education from the University of Arizona. Joe Dial was a graduate of the University of Redlands and had a master’s de;gree in electrical engineering. All Joe Dial needed for his Ph.D. degree was the • completion of his dissertation, which he was in the process of writing. While working at this, he was employed part-time .as a researcher for Dr. Paul Johnson at the University of Arizona. Dr. Johnson’s ■particular field was physiology. Because ■of Joe Dial’s expertise in the field of electrical engineering, he was working with 'Dr. Johnson to develop special instrumentation in the field of microcirculation. 2

Dr. Johnson testified that he was de'lighted with Joe Dial because he had a good capability for designing instruments, -seeing improvements that were needed and ‘how this should be accomplished. Dial was instrumental in developing two sepa•rate instruments which the laboratory is mow using. One measures the capillary hematocrit (a concentration of red cells in -the capillaries) and the other involves the application of drugs directly to the micro-vessels. As a result of Dial’s designing an instrument for the measuring of the red cells concentration, Dr. Johnson was able to solve the problem as to whether red cells and plasma took different routes to the capillaries.

Joe Dial, together with a Dr. Robert W. Gore of the physiology department, authored a paper published in the Journal of Applied Psychology entitled “A capacitive-discharge, microiontophoretic device with single-ended output”. He also co-authored an article which was published in the American Journal of Physiology entitled “Influence of flow variations on capillary hematocrit in mesentery”.

Although Dr. Johnson had worked for the past ten years with several engineers, he felt that Joe Dial was exceptional in that he was able to communicate with him across the barrier of engineering to biology and medicine. He could discuss a problem with Joe that needed solution, take him to the laboratory, show him the phenomenon under the microscope, and ask him to come up with the means of solving the problem. Dr. Johnson never found anyone better than Joe Dial in this respect. Not only could Dial solve the problems, but after doing so he continued thinking about them and sometimes came up with an even better way of solving them. Dial’s associates, companions and superiors found him a pleasant person, somewhat on the quiet side. He was very easy to talk to and seemed quite stable. He had no major problems and seemed to relate to people easily. It was easy to talk to Joe. He understood and was able to concentrate very well on subjects that were being discussed.

Because of Dial’s growing interest in the relationship between engineering and medicine, it was arranged for him to enter the physiology department after he received his Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering *506 to spend at least two years working in the research laboratory with Dr. Stewart, a professor of physiology specializing in neurophysiology. His salary at that time would have been approximately $9,000 with some fringe benefits. After doing his post-doctoral work with the University, Dial would have been making approximately $16,000 a year as an assistant professor. If he had completed this work in the department and risen to a full professorship, his earnings would have doubled. Dr. Johnson felt that Dial had a special talent greatly in demand in industry and in the field of medical instrumentation. Joe Dial had a great potential in the relationship of electrical engineering to bio-medicine.

Dr. Douglas G. Stewart testified that he became interested in Dial because of this potential and in particular was interested in how Dial could help him in his own research program on the neuro-control of movement. This interest was conveyed to Dial who had decided that when he received his Ph.D. in electrical engineering he would stay in the department working with Dr. Stewart on his research project. Dr. Stewart was helping Dial to prepare for a grant from the National Institute of Health which would have supported Dial’s post-doctoral work and paid his salary for several years. Dr. Stewart felt that with two or three more years in the lab, Dial would have been, if not number one, at least the number two man in his field in the country. As far as Dr. Stewart was concerned, Joe Dial’s future was unlimited.

Prior to August 6, 1971, Joe Dial was very active athletically. He and his wife both played tennis about three times a week. He played basketball, baseball and belonged to a volleyball group which met on Thursday evenings. He rode his bicycle to and from work every day, and had a morning physical fitness program. He and his wife did a lot of hiking, backpacking and camping. Physical fitness was very important to him and he spent a great deal of time outdoors in the sunshine.

Joe Dial was extremely intelligent, creative, and took great pride in his creativity.. He was also a very calm person with a lot of self-assurance. In a group he was not a. talker, but rather more of a listener and. observer, and spoke only when an important point had to be made. He was an attractive man as far as his wife was concerned. He was an exceptional engineer with a quick mind, lots of ideas, did not mind hard work and pushed his ideas. through.

On August 6, 1971, Joe Dial was brought to the emergency room of St. Mary’s Hospital as a result of the automobile collision, which caused his automobile to catch fire.. He was first seen by Dr. Morton Aronoff, a specialist in plastic and reconstructive-surgery.

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

Related

Orosco v. McShcd
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2017
Ahmad v. State
379 P.3d 1011 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2016)
Randolph Bachrach v. Covenant Transporation
636 F. App'x 404 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Collins on Behalf of Collins v. Perrine
778 P.2d 912 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1989)
Reager Ex Rel. Reager v. Anderson
371 S.E.2d 619 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1988)
Reilly v. United States
665 F. Supp. 976 (D. Rhode Island, 1987)
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance
733 P.2d 1073 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1987)
Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, Inc.
345 S.E.2d 791 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1986)
Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp. in USA
686 P.2d 925 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1984)
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co.
700 P.2d 830 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1984)
Precopio v. City of Detroit
330 N.W.2d 802 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1982)
Torres v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
658 P.2d 835 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1982)
Garcia v. City of South Tucson
640 P.2d 1117 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1981)
Burnett v. MacKworth G Rees, Inc
311 N.W.2d 417 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1981)
Griffin v. General Motors Corp.
403 N.E.2d 402 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1980)
Caron v. United States
410 F. Supp. 378 (D. Rhode Island, 1976)
Pippen v. Denison Division of Abex Corp.
239 N.W.2d 704 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1976)
State v. Mendiola
532 P.2d 193 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1975)
Linsenmeyer v. Hancock
533 P.2d 1181 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
503 P.2d 979, 18 Ariz. App. 503, 1972 Ariz. App. LEXIS 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wry-v-dial-arizctapp-1972.