 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maxwell v. Palmer12/22/2000
fory Palmer.
Questions of negligence and proximate cause are ordinarily for the jury. Iowa R. App. P. 14(f)(10); Boham v. City of Sioux City, 567 N.W.2d 431, 435 (Iowa 1997). A motorist upon a public highway has a right to assume others using the road will obey the law, including statutes, rules of the road and necessity for due care, at least until the motorist knows or in the exercise of due care should have known otherwise. Iowa R. App. P. 14(f)(9).
At trial, Palmers claimed Richard Maxwell was negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and/or failing to stop at the stop sign or yield the right-of-way before entering the intersection. Both parties presented expert testimony. Maxwell's experts, two Iowa State Troopers, testified Geoffory Palmer's vehicle was traveling between 95 and 105 mph just prior to the accident. The troopers conceded the Palmer vehicle had the right-of-way when the two vehicles met at the intersection. The troopers testified Palmer steered into the left lane to avoid Maxwell, but admitted his actions were a natural reaction to avoid a danger coming from the right. Further, during cross-examination, the troopers backed away from their theory the Maxwell vehicle entered the intersection without seeing the Palmer vehicle, and admitted if Richard Maxwell had looked, he would have seen Palmer's vehicle.
According to Palmers' expert, an independent accident reconstruction expert with extensive experience, Goeffory Palmer's vehicle was traveling between sixty-six to seventy-three miles per hour at the time it started to skid. Palmer's expert pointed out factors not taken into account by the troopers in making their calculations. Palmer's expert rejected the "over the hill" theory first offered by Maxwell's experts. The expert testified Goeffory Palmer's vehicle would have been traveling at least 174 mph, and probably over 200 mph, if it were on the other side of the crest of the hill when Richard Maxwell started into the intersection from the stop sign.
The jury was free to disregard all or part of an expert's testimony. Mensink v. American Grain, 564 N.W.2d 376, 382 (Iowa 1997). A reasonable jury could, and did, conclude Richard Maxwell was negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and/or failing to stop at the stop sign or yield the right-of-way before entering the intersection. We agree with the district court's conclusion in its ruling on Maxwell's motion for new trial:
The evidence clearly supports the jury's finding that defendant Geoffory Palmer was at fault. It is undisputed Palmer was speeding. However, regardless of speed, Palmer has the right-of-way. A reasonable jury could conclude Richard Maxwell was at fault for failure to stop and yield to Palmer. Further, the jury could reasonably conclude Maxwell's fault was a greater cause of the accident because Palmer would have sped by but for Maxwell's failure to yield. Whether the allocation of fault is 50% - 50% or 51% - 49% is well within the province of this jury to decide.
We conclude substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict, and affirm the district court on this issue.
Jury Misconduct.
Maxwell claims extraneous prejudicial information was brought into the jury room with the intent to change the jury's decision. According to Maxwell, one juror stated during the course of jury deliberations that if the jury found Palmers fifty percent or more at fault, they would lose their farm. Two juror affidavits attached to Maxwell's motion for new trial support this contention. Further, Maxwell asserts the jurors used this information and decided liability based upon the Palmers' ability to pay the judgment, rather than the law gi
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|