OCR Text |
Show WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1970 THE DAILY RECORD AND SHARON HUNT; PI tf $85.00; Judg now vs RICHARD STEGLICH GEORGE Pltf$1400; Melvin T. Riche son, Don Bybee, Hatch & McRae 192887 - Government National Plaintiff and Respondent, Appeal from a judgment on a jury verdict for pl.iintilf in an action for personal injury damage while riding on a snowmobile. Affirmed with costs 190042 - Mortgage Investment Co. D. MAXFIELD to plaintiff. AND G. MAXFIELD; Plaintiff, commercial photographer, age 44, was employed to lake pictures of a snowmobile to advertise defendant's camera equipment. The situs was a ski resort near Salt Lake City. Defendant's drove the vehicle and plaintiff sat tandem immediately behind him. I11 ascending a e hill, the vehicle was driven around a snowbank or hump. I11 order Judgment and 189680 - D. F. Law, aka Dean F. Law vs GHE CROWN vice-preside- LIFE INSURANCE CO; Pltf$468.00 $64.20; $25.40; summary judg 190959 BRADLEY G. BRADLEY man-mad- DBA ENTERPRISES; Pltf$1002.67; $23.00; judg 156598 - Business Collection Agency vs MARGARET JOYCE DERGIDE AND JOHN A. DERGIDGE; Pltf$284 $688.00; $19.60;default 192197 - Security Adjustment Bureau, Inc. vs DELORES HINES Pltf$1,003.18; $27.40 default 193077 Co. EAST ANTELOPE C0RPN Pltf$2707.13; $25.60 default 192989 - ys Jelco Inc. vs CORPORATION UNIVERSAL LEASING Pltf$6,113.76; $24.00; default 192706 National Finance Co. of Murray vs K. W. CARRELL AND on Pltf$1380.45 $217.00; $30.40; default BONNIE K. CARRELL; 193137 - Brig Young and Helen Young vs BROWN AND SANFORD IRRIGATION CO; $25.80; default 180663 - Cleo Lettlg and Ja"ies RAYMOND JOHNSON 191072 - State of Utah vs J. STREVELL default Her. to 0 R Slusher, 3460 EastvooH rirs tv, Rir.gd Larry U m Clark, 623 Tanner Jevelrv; C sic , Tanner Jew1rv; C lc to AND KAYE CASHLAND MC bleep., Box 303, i'idvale to hh ads rfr. Pin; Pltf$433.72; default MCCASHLAND; . Financing Statements Pltf $2500.00 State of Utah vs Pltf$1,656.00 189256 - Anita L. Jakins vs D. JAKINS; Pltf$707.00 LYLE judg Allen Hilton, - Nelia I. Barber and State of Utah vs GERALD R. BARBER; Pltf $7, 050; judg to :rior, 3t. lc fanner Jewelry; Rings A to Gerald Er.niss, 13C14 o 1300 'J Strutter. , 133 sic to Seaboard l- - ", SraDer HFC; M"iphicat Hobart - Raymond H. Ross and vs LLOYD N. OLSEN Ross Betty Pit f $4315 . 07 ; judg 171805 voodland Ave Fir. ; Seiner Yost, ;o0 Fid Inrt Cr; hh Ha uuQP 5, sic to Scott 120" hr.sir.?ton, sic V49986 190548 - Clifford Harrison vs JOE CLINTON KENDALL; Pltf $469.71; $39.50; $23.40 judg 192034 Co. vs CLUB; National Cash Register HILLS . 62 ; 561 , WESTLAND PI t$2 to Zir.errar,, K Walker "k; Stereo eouio Fred Burns, 1243 7 u lams Co; A Fliet, 31 J Van Cr UKTA 3:.) bher-win-W- ill l?th S, sic to E car hh Ur. ; s, sic to snrsv unit COUNTRY $526.18 Byron Lloyd, 6195 Glen Caks. lturray UKTA Cr Un; car hhpds to 189614 - Ted Wakefield vs Harrv 3 Proveaux, 4774 5 4300 KIMBALL RENTAL AND SALES Pltf $1, 515. 00; $25.40 judg to Ray UMTA Third District Court Calendar Cr U.v,Ti J Archuleta, 377 ? 7th tf, sic to Cr Un; turck hh gris Barbara 7 Dollock, 2? 39 to Kams W, Hs IV,; hh Cr A Glnnn Uhs hh 3 400 Mama W, Hs Allen, 2349 Sundown Ave, Cr Un; Cancer hh eds tf UMTA sic to 1 'ediifcsuny. May 20, 1970 ltijj'-- l - V. H. Carlton vs Western Casualty it. K. Child, E. J. Skeen and illenn C. Hannl I't'jcin - William Bengtzen dba vs Garcia et al and Hunt Ray Berry Gayle - Jay Dee Coombs, et al vs Hoy J, Johnson, et al Macqy A. McMurray 155575 - Lavume & Jos. McCarthy B. Iladen vs Auerbach Co. J. Barclay & Leonard Russ on lyulUU - William L. Lister, et al vs Steven H. Walker, et al L. Richard Mofl'at and K.K. Dahl & Royal Ifunt Robert Beebe, 4Q60 a-- Un; U1TA Ror.ald athan to 15 UKTA B R UMTA Y earns to Hs sic to Cordells ave, sic car hh eds Woolsev, 5126 S Lori Way, Cr U; cars hh eds James P Barnes, 410 UKT1 Cr Un; Boat Wm .1, Byxai, 294 to to 4900 Olson, 469 Westminster, Cr Un; UKTA Robert to D S TV Cr Ur.; Truck hh UKTA Plaintiff admitted he lost no days of work, but had to forego outside He had not seen a doctor nor had he been treated by one before the accident. He could do no physical work with the brace on his back, which kept him rigid but did not relieve the pain. Although he needed extra help work. during the Christmas season, none was obtainable, sc he cancelled his cutside work which required lifting and carrying 50 to 75 pounds of equipment. Thereafter he hired a man for a couple of months and paid him. He ha3 continuing pain like a toothache, has been unable to do what he did before, and gets someone else to do it, like photographing weddings, - about five a month, he said, at $15 to $20 each. Before the accident, he swam, golled: fished and bowled. After the accident he could not play golf or fish, but could swim, and with some pain, could bowl. The foregoing, we believe, is a fair and accurate condensed statement of uncontradicted evidence, and not necessarily that more favorable to plaintiff, as we could if we chose, treat the evidence on appellate review. rrds $29.20; judg INC; the evening of the accident plaintiff saw his doctor, a qualified orthopedic 6urgeon, who. after examining him, said there was a muscle spasm in the low back area, considerable tenderness in the lumbar region, no great pressure on the nerves going to the legs, but there was a compression fracture of the second lumbar vertebrae, as reflected in taken. Such a comcontinued the doctor, is caused from flexion of the spine, in differpression, ent ways, such as a weight falling on one who is doubled up. The doctor recommended hospitalization because of the pain, but said that plaintiff declined because of pressure of business. As a substitute, he recommended use of a hyper-extensibrace to prevent bending, which was obtained and used He indicated that if the pain became intolerable a fusion could be by plaintiff. accomplished. He also indicated that after an event such as that occurring here, there is an excess 01 abnormal amount of wear and tear with more pain, as would occur to any joint that wears out before it should. The doctor also said that the injury caused 10 permanent disability and was on the lowest scale of severity, with no cord or nerve damage, that the recommended hospitalization was for comfort; that the disability consisted of discomfort experienced in making certain bodily movements w:th which condition plaintiff would have to live, and that a person could live a normal life under such circumstances unless, because of his occupation, he is forced to do something that hurts him. On Industrial Steel Inc. vs nt descending, the driver, instead of bypassing the hump, drove over it at what would appear to have been a reasonable speed for an auto. It left the surface about a foot, according to the driver, and traveled in the air about 10 or 12 feet, according to another witness. In landing the driver was thrown upward and to the rear and on top of plaintiff's stomach causing plaintiff to land on his back against a vertical back rest, requiring that he rest for 20 or 30 minutes and causing an undisputed injury to one of his vertebrae. Nonetheless, he finished his assignment. He had done some skiing himself and knew they would follow a trail with some irregularities. He had never ridden a snowmobile. The driver of the vehicle admitted that he could have gone around the hump on the descent, - as he had done on the ascent. The driver did not advise plaintiff he would jump the machine over the hump and plaintiff d:d not inquire about such a possibility. Being seated behind the driver, he could net see the hump, and obviously had no opportunity personally to take any preventive action. Hafer's Inc. vs LAWRENCE L. M. Cummings, Clerk HENRIOD, Justice: $526.20; garn judg RAYOLA May 8, 1970 judg 179019 - Lois Ann Lewis vs LEWIS vs General Electric Co. garnishee; CURTIS FILED National Housewares, Inc. , Defendant and Appellant. STEVEN KENT Inc. vs No. 11901 v. etux M. HERNANDO Pltf$16,382.76; GURULE; Howell Ujitusa, vs Judg Mortgage Assn vs In The Supreme Court Of The Stale Of Utah Lagoon Corporation James Hedlin & Reed Martineau 155372 - Margaret Cooper - Shirley Rae S. Stegllch Shirley Rae Peterson 96906 THREE B. Hansen vs William P. Hansen James Barker & Donn Cassity 177401 - Bradley Ruud vs - Glen L. Gustaveson vs 189188 DON HUNT - El Marie 159346 District Court Judgments PAGE sic Stanley Ave, sic Trlr Canroer Lundevall, 1885 r'rookhill Dr, sic Cr Un; Showmobiln Howard B Cude, S55 S 10th E, Sandy to Jordan Cr Uh; cars hh gds Oias Thayer, 5O55 S Holladav Blvd, , Holladay to Boise Cascade Emt Intermtn Defendant says 1) that there is no evidence of any negligence on the part of defendant, 2) that the court erred in not instructing the jury on assumption of risk, and 3) that the verdict was excessive. reflects that there was would if constitute negligence, particularly in view believed, evidence, which, of the facts that defendant took an unnecessary risk with a business invitee, whose safety was within its control, by jumping an obstacle which easily could have been avoided and by causing the vehicle to leave the ground, - an act that certainly was foreseeable as a cause for injury under the facts of this case. It is to be noted in this connection that instructions also were given on contributory negligence and even on unavoidable accident, but the jury did not choose to find for defendant on either such theory. As to I), we believe that the recitation above As to 2), Assumption of Risk: It does not appear that there were any circumstances so obvious and knowledgeable to a person like the plaintiff here as to reflect a hazard that would lead a reasonable person to protect himself against a likely injury. We can see no facts in this case that would justify an instruction that we believe and hold would invite not only error but only indulgeable conjecture on the part of the veniremen. We cannot perceive of any conclusion, based on the facts of this case, that would justify the defense of assuming a visible, known risk any more than would justify a defense on account of contributory negligence, which latter defense the jury, under proper instructions, specifically did not buy. We believe our conclusion in this respect amply is supported in what we have said before in some of our cases. The cases cited by appellant, largely have to do with well known hazards incident to sporting events, where onlookers pay to watch something involving such hazards. For what it is worth, it is noted that in the instant case plaintiff paid nothing for the ride, but conversely was being paid for his work under a contract, and was an invited business guest passenger, on a vehicle, which if carefully operated, would appear to pose no more of a hazard than that encountered while riding in a taxi, train or trolley car. Cr Un; Camper ..... SUPREME COURT DECISIONS-(Continu- ed on Page '4) |