CARL W. SAHLSTEN, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH I. LEACH ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Carl Sahlsten appealed a jury verdict in a wrongful death action arising from a two-car collision at an unmarked rural intersection. The jury found for the defendants, and the appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence supported the verdict despite plaintiff's sympathetic circumstances.
The jury verdict and judgment for defendants were supported by legally sufficient evidence. The trial court properly and amply charged the jury on the applicable law, and plaintiff's refused jury instructions were either immaterial or covered by the court's charges.
“We cannot feel that these were grounded on sympathy, passion, or pathos, because experience dictates that all of these human elements sided with the plaintiff.”
The court rejected the implication that the verdict was influenced by improper emotional factors.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo automobiles collided at an unmarked intersection in a rural area. The plaintiff's wife died as a result of the collision. The central factual disp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Wrongful Death cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff below, seeks review of a final judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of appellees, defendants below. Plaintiff sought recovery in an action for the wrongful death of his wife, which he alleged had been caused by defendants’ negligence. The trial court denied a motion for new trial and entered judgment. The record discloses that this action arose as a result of a collision of two automobiles at an unmarked intersection in a rural area. The question of who first entered the intersection was in controversy. The record discloses the trial court properly and amply charged the jury on the questions of law. Plaintiff’s refused requested charges were either immaterial to the issues or covered by other charges of the court. The jury resolved the issues in favor of the defendants, and the trial judge, in denying the motion for new trial, found that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict.
We cannot feel that these were grounded on sympathy, passion, or pathos, because experience dictates that all of these human elements sided with the plaintiff. The case was tried with fairness to both parties and determined by the jury *84 which the parties had examined for impartiality and integrity. When we consider this case within the orbit of our authority as an Appellate Court, we are of the conclusion that there was before the jury evidence legally sufficient to support its verdict and the judgment of the trial court, and we are, therefore, not justified in disturbing them.
Despite sympathy for the plaintiff over the tragedy which he has suffered, we conclude that the judgment must be and it is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and WHITE, J., concur.