 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rockwell8/16/1990
SHAW, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County directing verdicts in favor of both the plaintiffs and the defendants in a negligence action.
The parties to this action, in the trial court, were plaintiffs, Steven Walton and his insurer, Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, and defendants, Howard Rockwell and Lorraine Rockwell.
In September 1985, on State Route 613 in Washington Township, an eastbound automobile operated by Steven Walton collided with a westbound automobile operated by Howard M. Rockwell. As a result of the automobile accident, both parties received extensive physical injuries.
Subsequently, Motorists Mutual Insurance Company brought suit against Howard Rockwell based upon the insurance company's claim of subrogation of the rights of its insured, plaintiff Steven Walton. Defendant Rockwell answered and asserted that any injuries suffered by Walton were the result of his own negligence in causing the accident.
The trial court allowed Steven Walton to intervene in the action and assert his individual personal injury claim against Rockwell. Subsequently, Rockwell amended his answer to include a counterclaim for damages suffered as a result of Walton's alleged negligence. In addition, the trial court allowed Rockwell's wife, Lorraine Rockwell, to intervene and assert a counterclaim against Walton for loss of consortium.
In February 1988, a jury trial commenced in the matter. Upon conclusion of plaintiffs' case, defendants moved for a directed verdict requesting that the trial court direct the jury to find Walton negligent in the operation of his automobile and to further find that Walton's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. The trial court reserved its ruling on defendants' motion.
Upon the close of all evidence in the case, defendants renewed their motion for directed verdict and plaintiffs moved for directed verdict stating grounds converse to those raised by defendants' motion. Subsequently, the trial court entered judgment directing verdicts for both the plaintiffs and the defendants. Specifically, the trial court found that Walton and Rockwell were both negligent in the operation of their respective vehicles on the date of the accident. The court further found that the negligence of each party contributed at least fifty-one percent toward his respective individual injuries. Hence, the trial court dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaim and allowed neither party's claim for damages.
Subsequently, plaintiffs and defendants filed requests for reconsideration. In addition, defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The trial court overruled all post-judgment motions filed by the parties.
Defendants appeal from the judgment of the trial court and assert four assignments of error. Plaintiff, Steven Walton, cross-appeals and asserts five assignments of error. Plaintiff, Motorists Mutual Insurance Company, did not file a notice of appeal from the judgment. Plaintiff's first four assignments on cross-appeal are either identical or extremely similar to defendants' assignments on appeal. Therefore, we will consider these assignments together in the order in which they were raised.
The first assignments of error are that:
"The trial court committed prejudicial error when it usurped the jury's function and assessed the percentage of negligence to the respective parties."
R.C. 2315.19, Ohio's comparative negligence statute, provides at subsection (B)(2) that:
"(B) In any negligence ac
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|