4/23/2017 Leake v.

Hagert, 175 NW 2d 675 - ND: Supreme Court 1970 - Google Scholar

175N.W.2d675(1970)

AllenLEAKE,PlaintiffandAppellant,
v.
CharlotteHAGERT,DefendantandRespondent.

Civ.No.8569.

SupremeCourtofNorthDakota.

March25,1970.

679 *679Stokes,Vaaler,Gillig,Warcup&Woutat,GrandForks,forplaintiffandappellant.

Letnes,Murray&Marshall,GrandForks,fordefendantandrespondent.

PAULSON,Judge.

Thisisanappealbytheplaintiff,AllenLeake,fromajudgmentofdismissalofhiscauseofactionenteredintheDistrictCourtof
GrandForksCounty,NorthDakota,andfromanorderofthetrialcourtdenyinghismotionforanewtrial.

AllenLeake'scomplaintwaspredicatedupontheallegednegligenceofthedefendant,CharlotteHagert,inheroperationofamotor
vehicleonOctober25,1966,whereinshenegligentlyandcarelesslydroveherautomobileintotherearoftheplowbeingtowedby
atractorwhichLeakewasoperating,causinginjuriestoLeakeanddamagestohisplowandtractor.Leake'scomplaintincluded
allegationsofdamagesforhospitalanddoctorbillsforpermanentinjuriestohischestandrightarmforpainandsufferingandfor
680 damagestohisplowandtractorandhe*680prayedforajudgmentagainstCharlotteHagertinthesumof$27,600.Charlotte
Hagert,inheranswer,admittedthatthecollisionoccurred,but,asadefense,deniedthatthecollisionwasproximatelycausedby
hernegligenceintheoperationofhermotorvehicle,andsheallegedthatthesoleandproximatecauseofthecollisionwasthe
negligenceoftheplaintiffinthemaintenanceandoperationofhistractorandplow,uponapublichighwayaftersunset,without
properlights,reflectors,orotherwarnings.CharlotteHagertcounterclaimedfordamagescausedbytheallegednegligenceofAllen
Leakeforpermanentinjuries,forpainandsuffering,forhospitalizationandmedicalexpenses,andfordamagestoher1966
Plymouthautomobileandsheprayedforajudgmentagainsthiminthesumof$32,000.

AllclaimsanddefensesofbothAllenLeakeandCharlotteHagertweresubmittedtoajury,whichreturnedaverdictdismissingthe
complaintofAllenLeakeaswellasdismissingthecounterclaimofCharlotteHagert.

AllenLeake,beforethecasewassubmittedtothejury,madeamotionaskingthecourttodirectaverdictdismissingthe
defendant'scounterclaimonthegroundthatCharlotteHagertwasguiltyofnegligenceasamatteroflaw.Sheresistedthismotion
andalsomadeamotionforadirectedverdict,which,inturn,wasresistedbyAllenLeake.Thetrialcourtdeniedbothmotions.See
NorthernImprovementCo.v.PembinaBroadcastingCo.,153N.W.2d97(N.D.1967)Rule50(a),NorthDakotaRulesofCivil
Procedure.

AllenLeake,afterthejudgmentwasentered,madeamotionforanewtrialwhichwasdeniedbythetrialcourt.Themotionsetforth
specificationsoferror,which,generally,areasfollows:

1.Thatcertainerrorsoflawoccurredatthetrialinthat:

a.EdwardGrosswaspermittedtogivetestimonywhichwashearsay

b.ThefieldnotesofEdwardGross,whichcontainedhearsayevidenceandwereselfservingdeclarations,were
admittedintoevidence

c.Thecourterredininstructingthejury

d.Thecourterredinrefusingtogivetheplaintiff'srequestedinstructions.

2.Thattheevidencewasinsufficienttojustifytheverdictandthatitisagainstthelaw.

https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar_case?case=7309910935800465827&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2bmdlLrTAhWBebwK 1/10
4/23/2017 Leake v. Hagert, 175 NW 2d 675 - ND: Supreme Court 1970 - Google Scholar
3.Thattherewereirregularitiesintheproceedingsofthecourtorabuseofthecourt'sdiscretion,whichprevented
theplaintifffromhavingafairtrial.

4.Thattheplaintiff'scausewassubjecttoaccidentorsurpriseinthatthejurorandforeman,LewisNelson,hadhad
asimilaraccidentanddidnotadvisecounsel,onquestioning,ofthisfactandthathehadnoprejudicewhichcouldin
anywaydisqualifyhim,andthatthissurprisewasunknownuntilaftertheverdictofthejury,anditistotheprejudice
oftheplaintiff.

AllenLeake,afterhisoriginalmotionforanewtrialwasmade,movedtoamendhisspecificationsoferrortoincludeanalleged
errormadebythetrialcourtinnotgrantingthejury'srequesttohavethetestimonyofScottBosardreadtothem.Thetrialcourtalso
deniedthismotion.

TheaboveareinsubstancethesamespecificationsoferrorsetforthonappealtothiscourtfromthejudgmentdismissingAllen
Leake'scomplaintandfromthetrialcourt'sorderdenyingtheplaintiff'smotionforanewtrial.Itshouldbementionedthatthe
defendantisnotappealingfromthejudgmentdismissinghercounterclaim.Kingdonv.Sybrant,158N.W.2d863(N.D.1968).

TherecordrevealsthatCharlotteHagert,oncrossexamination,testifiedinsubstancethatshelivedwithherhusband,Curtis
681 Hagert,onafarmsouthofEmerado,NorthDakota.OnOctober25,1966,*681shedecidedtodrivetoEmerado.Sheleftthefarm
duringtheeveningandstarteddrivingnorthonHighwayNo.3,whichisapavedfarmroad.Asshewasdrivingnorthshesawacar
approachingfromthenorthandwhenthecarswereapproximatelyamileapartshedimmedherheadlights.Immediatelyafterthe
oncomingcarhadpassedhervehicle,shebecameawarethatatractortowingaplowwasproceedingnorth,directlyinfrontofher.
Sheappliedherbrakes,slowinghercartosomeextent,buthercarcontinuedforwardandstrucktheplow.Theimpactofthe
collisionforcedthefrontendofhercarupontheplowand,asaresult,shewasthrownforwardinhercarandwasknocked
unconscious.

Shefurthertestifiedthattheroadprecedingthepointofimpactwasnotleveland,infact,therewasariseintheroad.Shealso
statedthatshehadnotseenanylightsorreflectorsontheploworthetractorthatshecouldrememberthatatthetimeofthe
accidentshewasdrivingataspeedofbetween50and60milesanhourthathercarcollidedwiththeplowandtractorwhenher
carwasintheeastlaneand,asaresultofthecollision,hercarandtheplowcrossedthecenterlineoftheroadintothewestlane,
andthetractorveeredintotheeastditch.

Mrs.Hagertfurthertestifiedthatshewas46yearsofageatthetimeoftheaccidentandhadlivedinthesameareawithher
husbandsincetheirmarriagesome27yearsearlierthatshewasfamiliarwiththehighwaysinthatareaandwiththefactthat
duringthefarmingseasonfarmerswereoftendrivingtheirequipmentonthehighwaysandthatshewasawarethatwithinthisarea
theremightbecarsparkedalongthehighwaysatnight,somewithoutlights.

Mrs.Hagertfurthertestifiedthatpriortotheaccidentsheandherhusbandhadpurchasedanew1966Plymouthautomobile,and
thatonthedayoftheaccidentthiscar'sodometerhadregisteredapproximately4,000miles.Shealsotestifiedthatshehaddriven
thiscarpreviouslyandatthetimeoftheaccidentitwasingoodoperatingcondition,andparticularlyitspowerbrakes.

HighwayPatrolmanEdwardE.Siemieniewski,whoinvestigatedtheaccident,testifiedthattheaccidentwasreportedonOctober
25,1966,atabout6:45p.m.,andthatonthisdaythesunhadsetat5:22p.m.Hetestifiedthathearrivedattheaccidentsceneat
about7:30p.m.,andhisinvestigationrevealedthattheaccidentoccurredabout3milessouthofEmerado,onHighwayNo.3,the
blacktopsurfaceofwhichis26feetwidethattherewereskidmarks146feetinlengthmadebytheHagertcarandthat,afterthe
accident,thetractorhadcometorest104feetfromthecarthattheplowandthecarwerebadlydamagedthatthelightsonthe
tractorwerenotburning,butthatwhenheactivatedthelightswitch,hefoundthatthetwofrontlightsandonerearlightwerein
workingconditionthattherearlightwasawhitelight,buthedidnotknowwhichoneofthetworearlightswasworking,because
thelensesinbothlightshadbeenbrokenthattheroadsouthoftheaccidentscenewasnotlevel,buthadaslightrise,butnot
sufficienttointerferewithadriver'srangeofvision.

Mrs.AllenLeake,theplaintiff'swife,testifiedthatsheandthewifeofHighwayPatrolmanSiemieniewskiwerecousins.

ScottBosard,wholives41/2milessouthofEmerado,testifiedthatonOctober25,1966,between6:30p.m.and7:00p.m.,while
hewasonhiswayhomefromEmerado,hewasapassenger,ridingintherightrearseatofacardrivenbyGladysLaFontaine,who
wasdrivingsouthonHighwayNo.3ataspeedofbetween50and55milesanhour.HefurthertestifiedthatwhiletheLaFontaine
carwasproceedingsouthonsuchhighway,heobservedAllenLeakedrivinghistractorandtowingaplowcomingfromtheopposite
682 directionthatthecarinwhichhewasridingmetAllenLeake'stractorandplow*682atthetopoftheriseintheroadsouthofthe

https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar_case?case=7309910935800465827&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2bmdlLrTAhWBebwK 2/10
4/23/2017 Leake v. Hagert, 175 NW 2d 675 - ND: Supreme Court 1970 - Google Scholar
pointwheretheaccidentoccurred,andalsometanothercar,alsotravelingnorth,about300yardsfurthersouthoftherise.Healso
testifiedthathedidnotseetheaccidentnorstopattheaccidentsceneafterthecollision.

AllenLeaketestifiedthatonOctober25,1966,hehadbeenplowinginafieldsouthofwheretheaccidentoccurred.Whenhe
finishedplowingheleftthefield,turnedleft,andproceedednorthonHighwayNo.3.Hewasdrivingatractorandtowingaplow.
Thetractorwasequippedwithtwoheadlightsandtworearlightsoneoftherearlightswasawhiteworkinglightforusewhen
workinginthefieldsandtheotherwasasmallerredlightforusewhendrivingonthehighways.Hetestifiedthatwhenheturnedon
toHighwayNo.3heswitchedonhislightsandtestedthem,andatthattimebothheadlightsandthesmallredrearlightwere
working.Hefurthertestifiedthathewasdrivinghistractorpriortotheaccidentataspeedofabout10milesanhourthathehad
drivennorthonHighwayNo.3about11/2milesthatacarpassedhimcomingfromtheoppositedirectionthatheobservedacar
approachingfrombehindhimatafastrateofspeedthatheattemptedtopullhistractorandplowtotherightsideoftheroad,but
beforehecoulddosotheoncomingcarstruckhisplowfromtherear,causingtheplowandtractortodisengageandforcinghis
tractorintotherightditch.Hefurthertestifiedthatthereweretwo3inchreflectorsontheplowandthathehadoftenobservedthem
whenhisplowwasinhisfarmyard.Hestatedthatthereflectorswerevisibleatnightwhenautomobileheadlightsshoneonthem
andthattheycouldbeseenfromadistanceofabout500feet.

AllenLeaketestifiedoncrossexaminationthathedidnotmakeaminuteinspectionoftherearendofthetractoranddidnotknow
theconditionorcolorofitsreartaillight,eitherbeforeoraftertheaccident.Hefurthertestifiedthathedidnotknowwhetherthered
lightwasburningatthetimeofthecollision,andstatedthattherecouldhavebeensomedustonthereflectorsasaresultofhis
plowinginthefieldpriortotheaccidentthathehadnorecollectionofhowthetractorstoppedorofhowhegotoffthetractorand
hetestifiedthatthecarwhichhithimwastravelingabout70milesanhour.

CurtisHagert,insupportofhiswife'scounterclaimanddefenseagainsttheclaimofAllenLeake,testifiedthathiswifelefttheirfarm
atabout6:30ontheeveningoftheaccidentthatafterheheardabouttheaccidenthecalledhissoninlaw,MyronLarson,who
cametothefarmandgavehimaridetothehospitaltowhichhiswifehadbeentaken.Onthewaytothehospital,CurtisHagertand
MyronLarsonstoppedandobservedthesceneoftheaccidentandinspectedthedamagestotheHagartcar.HighwayPatrolman
Siemieniewskiwasattheaccidentsceneandwascheckingthelightsonthetractorwhentheyarrived,andCurtisHagerttestified
thatthesmalllightontherearofthetractordidnotcomeonuntilthepatrolmanstruckit.Hefurthertestifiedthatthelensforthe
smalllightwasmissingfromtherimbutthebulbwasnotbrokenthattherewasnoindicationofanybrokenglassinsidethecasing
ofthesmalllightandthatthecasingwasrustyanddirtyandthebulbwascoloredwitharedsubstance.

MyronLarson,theHagerts'soninlaw,testifiedthathegaveCurtisHagertaridetothehospitaltowhichMrs.Hagerthadbeen
takenandenroutetheystoppedandobservedthesceneoftheaccident.Hefurtherstated,withrespecttothetractorlights,thatthe
frontlightscameon,buttheworkinglightandthetaillightbothfailedtolightuntilthehighwaypatrolmanjiggledthemandthatthere
wasnolensinthesmalllight,thebulbofwhichwaspaintedapinkish,fadedredcolor.

683 EdwardGrosstestifiedthatheinvestigatedtheaccidentonOctober26,1966,thedayfollowingtheaccident.Hisinvestigation*683
includedvisitingthesceneoftheaccidentandmakinganinspectionofthetractorandplow,andthedamagedcarandtaking
picturesandmakingfieldnotesofhisfindings.Hetestified,withreferencetothesmalllight,thatitdidnothavealensinitthatthe
rubbergasketofthesmalllightwasweatherbeatenandshriveledthatthecasingdidnothaveanyreflectorizedmaterialinsideofit
thatthebulbhadsomeredandgreenpaintonitandhestatedthattheplowhadareflectoronit,whichwasdusty,andwhichdid
notfacetherear,butwasturnedtotheright.HefurthertestifiedthattheskidmarksmadebytheHagertcarmeasured
approximately131feet.Hestatedthat,whilehewasmakinghisinvestigation,hetalkedtoAllenLeake'sson,whotoldhimthatthe
lensinthesmalllighthadbeenmissingfromitsframeforsometimepriortotheaccident.Hefurthertestifiedthathetook
statementsfrombothAllenLeakeandCharlotteHagertastohowtheaccidentoccurred.

Inadditiontothetestimonyoftheabovewitnesses,anumberofpicturesoftheaccidentscene,thetractorandplow,andthecar
wereintroducedintoevidence.ThefieldnotesofEdwardGrossandthestatementtakenbyhimwereintroducedintoevidence,
whichcontainedevidenceofthefactthatthelensinthesmalllightontherearofthetractorhadbeenoutforsometime.

Theforegoing,insubstance,wasthepertinenttestimonyandevidencepresentedatthetrialtothejury.

Leake'sfirstcontentiononappealisthatcertainerrorsatlawoccurredduringthecourseofthetrial,atthetimethatthetrialcourt
overruledobjectionstotheadmissionofcertainevidence.TheevidenceobjectedtowascertaintestimonyadducedfromEdward
Gross,anadjusterwhoinvestigatedtheaccident.GrosstestifiedthatAllenLeake'ssontoldhim,withreferencetothesmallrear
lightonthetractor,thattheredlenshadbeenoutforsometime.EdwardGross'stestimonyconcerningthestatementofAllen
Leake'ssonwashearsay.
https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar_case?case=7309910935800465827&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2bmdlLrTAhWBebwK 3/10
4/23/2017 Leake v. Hagert, 175 NW 2d 675 - ND: Supreme Court 1970 - Google Scholar
Thehearsayruleprohibitsuseofaperson'sassertion,asequivalenttotestimonyofthefactasserted,unlesstheassertorisbrought
totestifyincourtonthestand,wherehemaybeprobedandcrossexaminedastothegroundsofhisassertionandhis
qualificationstomakeit.GrandForksB.&D.Co.v.IowaHardwareMut.Ins.Co.,75N.D.618,31N.W.2d495(1948).See5
WigmoreonEvidence(3ded.)1361,1364.AllenLeakecontendsthatwhetherornottheredlenswasoutatthetimeofthe
accidentisamaterialquestionoffact,determinativeastothecontributorynegligencebyAllenLeake,andwhetherhecomplied
withthestandardssetforthin392115,N.D.C.C.,whichrequiresthateverytractor,whenoperatinguponahighwayofthisstate
atanytimefromonehalfhouraftersunsettoahalfhourbeforesunrise,beequippedwithatleastonelampdisplayingaredlight
visible,whenlighted,fromadistanceofonethousandfeettotherearofsuchtractor.Leake'ssondidnottestifyinthepresent
actionhewasnotapartytotheactionhisstatementwasnotmadeunderoathhisstatementwasnotsubjecttocross
examinationandhewasnotavailableasawitnessatthetimeoftrialbecausehewasintheArmyandoverseas.Wefindthatit
waserrorforthetrialcourttoadmitintoevidencethetestimonyconcerningwhatLeake'ssonsaidtoEdwardGrosstheson's
statementwashearsayandshouldhavebeenexcluded.

HavingfoundthatthetrialcourterredinadmittingthestatementofAllenLeake'ssonintoevidence,wemustdetermineonthis
appealwhethersuchanerroneousadmissionwasprejudicialandconstitutesreversibleerror.UnderRule61,N.D.R.Civ.P.,errorin
theadmissionofevidenceisnotagroundforanewtrialunlesssucherroraffectsthesubstantialrightsoftheparties.Foxv.Bellon,
684 136N.W.2d134(N.D.1965).Therefore,tobeprejudicialerror,thesubstantialrightsofthecomplaining*684partymustbeaffected.
Otherwitnessestestifiedduringthetrialastotheconditionofthetaillightandwhetherthelighthadaredlens.CurtisHagert,Myron
Larson,andEdwardGrosstestifiedtothefactthattherearlightwaspaintedorcoveredwithsomereddishsubstanceandthatthere
wasnothingwhichwouldindicatethattheredlenshadbeenshatteredbytheaccident.Inaddition,astatementtakenbyEdward
Gross,fromAllenLeake'ssummaryofcircumstancessurroundingtheaccident,includedastatementthatthelenshadbeenoutfor
sometimebeforetheaccident.ThisstatementwasintroducedbyAllenLeake.Reviewingtherecordconcerningthetestimony
submittedwithreferencetotheconditionofthelightandthelensatthetimeoftheaccident,wefindthatthehearsaystatementof
AllenLeake'ssonwaserroneouslyadmittedbythetrialcourt,butthatsucherrorwasnotprejudicial.

AllenLeakeurgesthatthetrialcourterredwhenitpermittedtheadmissionofthefieldnotesofEdwardGrossintoevidence.Leake
contendsthatthefieldnotescontainedhearsayevidenceandwereselfservingdeclarations.Thehearsayevidencecontainedin
thefieldnotesconsistedofasummaryofwhatAllenLeake'ssontoldEdwardGrosswithregardtotheredlensbeingoutforsome
time.Aspreviouslystatedbythiscourt,itwaserroronthepartofthetrialcourttopermittheadmissionofsuchhearsayevidence,
butbecauseothercompetenttestimonyastothesamefactwasadmittedbyotherevidence,theerrorwouldnotbeprejudicial
unlesstheadmissionofallofthefieldnoteswasdeemedprejudicialandconstitutedreversibleerror.

Leakecontendsthatnoneofthefieldnotesshouldhavebeenadmittedintoevidenceandthattheirconsiderationbythejuryshould
nothavebeenpermitted,becausesuchnoteswereselfservingdeclarationsofthewitness,EdwardGross,whotestifiedatthetrial.
Whileitisgenerallyrecognizedthatthewrittenstatementofawitnesscannotbeintroducedintoevidenceoverobjectionunlessthe
adversepartyhastherighttoconfrontationandtherighttocrossexamination,inthepresentcaseitwasAllenLeakewho
introducedtestimony,throughcrossexaminationofEdwardGross,astothecontentsofGross'sfieldnotesanditwasGross'sfield
noteswhichsupportedthetestimonyofAllenLeake.TheplaintiffmayhavebelievedthatquestioningEdwardGrossastothe
contentsofhisfieldnoteswasgoodtrialstrategy,butAllenLeakecannotnowcomplainoftheintroductionofsuchfieldnotesifthey
wereusedbyhimduringthecourseofthetrial.Thiscourtheld,inthecaseofGrandForksB.&D.Co.v.IowaHardwareMut.Ins.
Co.,supra,thattheadmissionofadetailedstatementwasprejudicialerror.However,inthatcasethewrittenstatementcontained
statementsoffactandconclusionswhichhadnotbeentestifiedtoinopencourt.Inthecaseatbar,thefieldnotesofEdwardGross
didnotcontainanyfactsorconclusions,butonlynotationsastodamagestothevehiclesandastomeasurementstowhichhe
testifiedoncrossexaminationbyLeake'sattorney.Accordingly,weconcludethatitwasnotprejudicialerrorforthetrialcourtto
admitthefieldnotesofEdwardGrossintoevidence.

AllenLeakefurthercontendsthatcertainofthetrialcourt'sinstructionstothejurywereimproper.ThelawinNorthDakotawith
referencetojuryinstructionsiswellestablished.Thiscourtonappealhasfollowedtherulethatalthoughaninstructionstanding
alonemaybeinsufficientorerroneous,itmustbeconsideredinconnectionwiththeremainderofthechargeandifthewhole
chargetakentogethercorrectlyadvisesthejuryastothelaw,theerror,ifany,istherebycured.Willertv.Nielsen,146N.W.2d26
(N.D.1966)Spaldingv.Loyland,132N.W.2d914(N.D.1965)Grenzv.Werre,129N.W.2d681(N.D.1964)Frohv.Hein,76N.D.
701,39N.W.2d11(1949).

685 *685AllenLeakeassertsthatitwaserrorforthetrialcourttogivethefollowinginstruction:

https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar_case?case=7309910935800465827&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2bmdlLrTAhWBebwK 4/10
4/23/2017 Leake v. Hagert, 175 NW 2d 675 - ND: Supreme Court 1970 - Google Scholar
"4.Beforeapersoncanbeheldresponsiblefornegligenceorwillfulmisconduct,eitherasthebasisofaclaimof
liabilityorasabasisofthedefenseofcontributorynegligence,hiswrongfulconductmusthavebeenaproximate
causeoftheinjury.***"

Leakeparticularlystatesthatitwaserrorforthetrialcourttoincludeinsuchinstructiononnegligencethefollowinglanguage:

"***negligenceorwillfulmisconduct[emphasisadded],eitherasabasisofaclaimofliabilityorasabasisof
contributorynegligence***"

Leakecontendsthattheuseofthewords"willfulmisconduct"inthechargewaserror,becauseitwasnotallegedinthepleadings,
and,furthermore,theevidencedidnotsupportandproveaclaimofwillfulmisconduct.AlthoughweagreewithAllenLeakethatit
waserrorforthecourttosoinstruct,theinstructions,consideredintheirentirety,correctlyadvisedthejuryastothelawof
negligenceand,inaddition,weareoftheopinionthattheuseofthewords"willfulmisconduct"or"negligence"bythecourtinthe
alternativewasnotsufficienttomisleadthejuryastotheapplicableruleoflawtoapplytotheissuesinthecase,especiallywhere
thebalanceofsuchinstructionrelatedonlytowhatisrequiredtosatisfyactionablenegligencetosupportLeake'sclaim.

Leakealsourgesthatitwaserrorforthetrialcourttoquoteanentirestatute,whichcontainedirrelevantlanguage,notpertinentto
theevidencesubmittedatthetrial.Thetrialcourtsetout,inessence,allof392115,N.D.C.C.,inInstructionNumber6:

"6.***

"Section392115.Everyfarmtractor,selfpropelledunitoffarmequipment,ortowedimplementofhusbandry,when
operateduponthehighwaysofthisstateatanytimefromahalfhouraftersunsettoahalfhourbeforesunrise,shall
beequippedasfollows:1.Tractorsandselfpropelledunitsoffarmequipmentshallbeequippedwithtwosingle
beamormultiplebeamheadlampsmeetingtherequirementsashereinbeforesetforth,provided,thatatractoror
selfpropelledunitoffarmequipmentwhichisnotequippedwithanelectricalsystemshallbeequippedwithatleast
onelampdisplayingawhitelightvisiblewhenlightedfromadistanceofnotlessthanonethousandfeettothefront
ofsuchvehicle.Everytractorandselfpropelledunitoffarmequipmentshallbeequippedwithatleastonelamp
displayingaredlightvisiblewhenlightedfromadistanceofonethousandfeettotherearofsuchvehicle.In
addition,everyselfpropelledunitoffarmequipmentshallbeequippedwithtworedreflectorsvisiblefromall
distancesfromsixhundredfeettoonehundredfeettotherearwhendirectlyinfrontoflawfulupperbeamsofhead
lamps.[Emphasesadded.]

"2.Everytowedunitoffarmequipmentorimplementofhusbandryshallbeequippedwithatleastonelamp
displayingaredlightvisiblewhenlightedfromadistanceofonethousandfeettotherearortworedreflectorsvisible
fromalldistanceswithinsixhundredtoonehundredfeettotherearwhendirectlyinfrontoflawfulupperbeamsof
headlamps.Inaddition,iftheextremeleftprojectionofsuchtowedunitoffarmequipmentorimplementof
husbandryextendsbeyondtheextremeleftprojectionofthetowingtractororvehicle,suchunitorimplementshall
beequippedwithatleastoneamberlamporreflectormountedtoindicateasnearlyaspracticabletheextremeleft
projectionandvisiblefromalldistanceswithinsixhundredfeettoonehundredfeettothefrontthereofwhen
686 illuminatedbytheupperbeamsofheadlampsandatleastoneredlampreflectorsomountedand*686visiblefrom
suchdistancestotherear.[Emphasisadded.]

"Thelampsandreflectorsrequiredbythissectionshallbesopositionedastoshowfromfrontandrearasnearlyas
practicabletheextremeprojectionofthevehiclecarryingthemonthesideoftheroadwayusedinpassingsuch
vehicle.Ifafarmtractororaunitoffarmequipment,whetherselfpropelledortowed,isequippedwithtwoormore
lampsorreflectorsvisiblefromthefrontortwoormorelampsorreflectorsvisiblefromtherear,suchlampsor
reflectorsshallbesopositionedthattheextremeprojectionsbothtotheleftandtotherightofsaidvehicleshallbe
indicatedasnearlyasispracticable.***"

ThemainthrustofLeake'sargumentisthattheemphasizedportionoftheinstructionissurplusageandmisleading,inthat:first,no
selfpropelledunitoffarmequipmentwasinvolvedinthecaseand,second,thereisnoevidencethatanypartoftheplowextended
totheleftofthetractor,bothofwhich,under392115,N.D.C.C.,requiredifferentstandardsoflightsorreflectorswhenusedon
thehighwaysinNorthDakota.

Thisinstructionis,inessence,adirectquotefrom392115,N.D.C.C.therefore,itisacorrectstatementofthelaw.Ourcourt
said,inSpaldingv.Loyland,supra132N.W.2dat923:

https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar_case?case=7309910935800465827&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2bmdlLrTAhWBebwK 5/10
4/23/2017 Leake v. Hagert, 175 NW 2d 675 - ND: Supreme Court 1970 - Google Scholar
"Althoughtherewasnoevidencewhatsoeverintherecordtowhichthequotedportionofthestatutecouldapply,
nevertheless,itwascopiedandgiven.Theinclusioninaninstructionofinapplicableportionsofastatutecanonly
addtothejury'sformidabletaskofapplyingthelawasgiventoitbythecourttothefactsasitfindsthem.Forthis
reason,wefinditwaserrortosoinstruct.

`Averdictisproperlysetaside,andanewtrialgranted,wheretheinstructionswerenotapplicableunderthe
evidence,andtendedtomisleadandconfusethejury.Thefactthat.suchinstructionsmaystatecorrectlegal
propositionsinnomannerchangestherule.Welterv.Leistikow,9N.D.283,83N.W.9.'"

Thiscourthasalsosaid,inMillsv.Roggensack,92N.W.2d722,725(N.D.1958):

"Weagreethatthisinstructionwassuperfluousbutthatdoesnotmeanthatitwasnecessarilyprejudicial.
Instructionsonissuesormattersnotwarrantedbytheevidenceareerroneousbutconstitutereversibleerroronly
whencalculatedtomisleadthejuryorinotherwordswhentheyareprejudicial.Fosterv.Dwire,51N.D.581,199
N.W.1017,51A.L.R.21Schwabelv.FirstNationalBank,53N.D.904,208N.W.236."

Thisbeingthelaw,wemustdeterminewhetherintheinstantcasetheinstructiontendedtomisleadorconfusethejury.Itisdifficult
forustofindthatthejurywasmisledorconfusedbytheinstruction.Consideringtheevidencesubmittedatthetrialandthe
instructiongiven,ajurywouldreasonablyinferthatnoselfpropelledunitoffarmequipmentwasinvolvedandthereforewouldnot
applytheinapplicableportionof392115,N.D.C.C.,tothefactsbeforethem.Astotheclaimthattheevidencedidnotsupport
theinstructionconcerningapulledunitwhichextendedtotheleftofthetractor,thestandardsofreflectorstotherearasrequiredby
thestatutewerefullycompliedwith,andthisissupportedbytheevidenceevenifthejurywouldhavedeterminedthattheplowdid
extendtotheleftofthetractorwhenbeingpulled.Consideringthesefacts,inadditiontothefactthatthestatutewasclearly
separableastocertainrequirementsfordifferenttypesofvehicles,webelievethatthejurywasnotmisledorconfusedbythe
instructionand,eventhoughitwaserrorforthetrialcourttosoinstruct,theerrorwasnotprejudicial.

687 *687Leakeassertsasadditionalerrorthetrialcourt'sfailuretoincludeacautionaryprovisionwithrespecttoproximatecausewhen
itinstructedthejuryasfollows:

"***thataviolationofanyofthetrafficlawsofthestateofNorthDakota,oranyotherlawbearingthereonis
evidenceofnegligencewhichthejurymayconsiderindeterminingtheissueofnegligence."[InstructionNo.7.]

ItisLeake'scontentionthataviolationoflawmaybeconsideredasevidenceofnegligence,butonlywhensuchviolationisfoundto
betheproximatecauseoftheinjury.Theabovequotedinstructionhasbeenapprovedbythiscourtinmanycases.Attlesonv.
Boomgarden,73N.W.2d448(N.D.1955)Imusv.Huber,71N.W.2d339(N.D.1955)Spenningsbyv.Peterson,67N.W.2d913
(N.D.1955)Knudsenv.Arendt,79N.D.316,56N.W.2d340(1952).Innoneofthecaseshasthiscourtbeenpresentedwiththe
issuenowunderconsideration.Leake'scontentionhasmeritandacautionaryprovisionwithrespecttoproximatecausewould
havebeenmorespecificandhelpfultothejuryinorderforthemtobetterunderstandandapplythelawofthecasetothefacts
beforethem.However,areviewoftheinstructionshowsthatthetrialcourtdidproperlyinstructthejuryonproximatecause,onthe
elementsofnegligence,andonwhatconstitutesactionablenegligenceandwethereforefindthatitwasnotprejudicialerrorforthe
trialcourttosoinstruct.

Leakeurgesthatthetrialcourt'sinstructiononcircumstantialevidencewaserroneousbecauseallofthefactsweretestifiedtoby
bothpartieswhowerepresentandwhowereeyewitnessestotheaccident.Wefindfromtherecordthatthecourt'sinstructionwas
proper,especiallysincetherewasconflictingtestimonyastowhethertherearlightonthetractorwaslitpriortoandatthetimeof
theaccident,and,accordingly,thejuryhadtherighttoconsiderthedirectevidenceaswellasthecircumstantialevidenceinorder
todeterminewhetherornottherearlightwasburningand,inaddition,whethersuchlightalsohadaredlens,asrequiredbythe
statute.

LeakeassertsadditionalerrorbecauseoftherefusalofthetrialcourttograntLeake'sRequestedInstructionsNos.9,11,12,and
17.RequestedInstructionNo.11dealtwiththeissuesofnegligenceandproximatecauseandRequestedInstructionNo.17
concernedtheruleoflawwhereadriverisblindedbyaglareoflight,andtheexerciseofcarerequired.Bothweresubmittedby
Leakeaserror,butwerenotarguedeitherinhisbrieforonoralargument.Specificationsoferrorunsupportedbyargumentinthe
brieffiledintheSupremeCourtaredeemedabandoned.Rule8(B),NorthDakotaSupremeCourtRules,76N.D.xixRegentCo
op.EquityExch.v.Johnston'sFuelLiners,122N.W.2d151(N.D.1963)Mevorahv.Goodman,68N.W.2d469(N.D.1955).

https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar_case?case=7309910935800465827&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2bmdlLrTAhWBebwK 6/10
4/23/2017 Leake v. Hagert, 175 NW 2d 675 - ND: Supreme Court 1970 - Google Scholar
RequestedInstructionNo.12setsforththeburdenofproofrequiredofAllenLeakeandMrs.Hagertwithreferencetonegligence
andcontributorynegligenceandincorporatingproximatecause.Leakeconcedesthatthesameisincludedinthecourt's
instructionsandsubmitsnofurtherargument.LeakeconcedesthatRequestedInstructionNo.9andthecourt'sinstructions,which
arebasedonNorthDakotapatternjuryinstructions,donotsatisfactorilyexplaintheproofrequiredbythefairpreponderanceofthe
evidencerule.However,Leakedoesnotpresentanyargumentinsupportthereof.ConsideringbothRequestedInstructionsNos.12
and9,andthefailureofLeaketosubmitargumentinsupportofsuchallegederrors,thiscourtdeemsthatLeakehasabandoned
them,and,therefore,theywillnotbediscussed.

Leakecontendsthatsincethecourtinstructedthejuryonthequestionof"willfulmisconduct"or"negligence",thecourtshouldhave
688 definedwhat"willful*688misconduct"means.Leake'sRequestedInstructionNo.6containssuchwording.Havingdecidedthatit
waserrorforthetrialcourttoinstructthejurywithregardto"willfulmisconduct",Leake'sRequestedInstructionNo.6wouldonly
compoundthaterror.ThuswedeterminethatitwasnotprejudicialerrorforthetrialcourttorefusetogiveLeake'sRequested
InstructionNo.6.

Leake'sRequestedInstructionNo.16readsasfollows:

"IfyoushouldfindfromtheevidencethatpartiestothisactionhaveviolatedthelawoftheStateofNorthDakota
governingtheuseofmotorvehiclesasIhaveinstructedyou,thenyouareinstructedthatsuchviolationisevidence
ofnegligence.However,Ichargeyouinconnectiontherewiththataviolationoflawisofnoconsequenceunlessit
wasaproximatecauseof,orcontributed,insomedegreeasaproximatecause,toaninjuryfoundbyyoutohave
beensufferedbyoneoftheparties."

Sincewepreviouslyhavedeterminedthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrwhenitfailedtoincludetheissueofproximatecausein
conjunctionwiththeinstructiontothejurythataviolationofthelawisevidenceofnegligence,nofurtherdiscussionwithreference
toLeake'sRequestedInstructionNo.16isnecessary.

Leake'sRequestedInstructionNo.19isdividedintotwopartsthefirstpartbeinganexcerptfrom392115,N.D.C.C.,andthe
secondpartbeingthestatutorydefinitionofthewords"lawfulupperbeamsofheadlamps".Thetrialcourtdidgivetherequested
instructionastotheexcerptfrom392115,N.D.C.C.,butdeniedtherequestedinstructionastothedefinitionofthewords"lawful
upperbeamsofheadlamps".Wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnotcommiterrorindenyingthesame,becausetherewasnoevidence
containedintherecordthatMrs.Hagertwasusingtheupperbeamsoftheheadlampsonhercarwhentheaccidentoccurred.

Thetrialcourtgavethefollowinginstructiontothejury:

"5(3)***Theruleofsafetyistherulethatonemustdriveatsuchaspeedastobeabletostopwithintheassured
cleardistanceahead.Theword"Assured"meanswithreasonablecertaintyratherthanabsolutecertainty.Inorderto
complywiththisrule,thedriverofamotorvehiclemustnotoperateitatagreaterspeedthanwillpermithimtobring
ittoastopwithinthedistancebetweenhisvehicleandadiscernibleobjectobstructinghispathorlineoftravel.The
distancethatadrivercanseeaheadofhimisshortenedatnightinthedark,andheshouldthereforedrivemore
slowlyafternightfall,andmustbeable,asageneralrule,tostopwithintherangeofhisheadlightsforsuch
obstructionsasanordinarilycarefuldriverwouldsee."

LeakesubmittedtothecourtRequestedInstructionNo.10,whichreadsasfollows:

"YouareinstructedthatthelawoftheStateofNorthDakotarequiresthatapersonmustdrivehisvehicleatsucha
speedastobeabletostopwithintheassuredcleardistanceaheadandthatadrivermustanticipatethatother
vehicles,lightedorunlighted,maybeupontheroadandhemustseesuchvehicleasacarefulpersonwouldhave
seen."

Leake'sprimarycontentionisthatthetrialcourtinitsinstructiontothejuryshouldnothavequalifiedtheword"assured"withthe
words"withreasonablecertaintyratherthanabsolutecertainty".Wefind,afterconsideringthecourt'sinstruction,thatthecourt
properlyinstructedthejuryastothelawwithregardtotheassuredcleardistanceruleand,inaddition,thatthecourtexplainedthe
properapplicationofthatruletotheevidenceadducedatthetrial.

689 Leakeassertsthatthecourterredwhenitdidnotgivehisrequestedinstructions,*689whicherrorhebasesonthefollowing
instructiongivenbythetrialcourt:

https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar_case?case=7309910935800465827&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2bmdlLrTAhWBebwK 7/10
4/23/2017 Leake v. Hagert, 175 NW 2d 675 - ND: Supreme Court 1970 - Google Scholar
"***Anypersondrivingavehicleonastreetorhighwayshalldrivethesameinacarefulandprudentmanner,
havingdueregardtothetraffic,surface,andwidthofthestreetorhighwayandanyotherconditionsthenexisting.
Nopersonshalldriveanyvehicleuponastreetorhighwayinamannertoendangerthelife,limb,orpropertyofany
person.***"[InstructionNo.6.]

LeakeaskedthatthecourtgivehisRequestedInstructionsNos.3and22,whichrelatetothecourt'sinstructionabove.Leake's
RequestedInstructionsNos.3and22aresimilar,exceptforthefactthatNo.3directsthatthecourt"instruct"andNo.22directs
thatthecourt"charge"thejury.Bothoftheserequestedinstructionsare,inessence,whatthecourtdidinstructthejury.Leake
contendsthatthecourtshouldhaveinstructedthejurybystatingthatitisunlawfultodriveinacarelessandheedlessmanner.We
findthatthelanguageusedbythetrialcourtinitsinstructionwasgiveninafairandunbiasedmannerandthatsuchinstructionwas
acorrectstatementofthelawandthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinrefusingtogiveLeake'sRequestedInstructionsNos.3and22.

Leake'sRequestedInstructionsNos.5and20werequalificationsoftheabsolutespeedlimitsassetforthbystatute.Hecontends
thatthecourtshouldhavegiventheserequestedinstructions.However,wefindfromareadingoftheentireinstructionsthatthe
court,insubstance,didqualifythespecificinstructiongivenastothespeedlimitsonthehighwaywheretheaccidentoccurred,and
thusthecourtdidnotcommiterrorinrefusingtogiveRequestedInstructionsNos.5and20.

Leake'sRequestedInstructionNo.4statesthatitisthedutyofeverydrivertoexerciseordinarycareintheoperationofamotor
vehicle,definesordinarycare,andsetsforthadriver'sresponsibilityforfailuretocomplywiththedutytodrivecarefully.Wehave
reviewedRequestedInstructionNo.4,aswellasthetrialcourt'sinstructions,anddeterminethatthetrialcourt,inessence,gavea
similarinstruction.ThusthetrialcourtdidnoterrinrefusingtogiveLeake'sRequestedInstructionNo.4.

Leakesetsforthasgroundsforhismotionforanewtrialthattheevidencewasinsufficienttojustifythejury'sverdictandthatthe
verdictwascontrarytolaw.Leake,insupportofthiscontention,assertsthat:wherehewasdrivinghistractoronthehighway,
towingaplow,andMrs.Hagertwasdrivingherautomobileinthesamedirection,andcollidedwiththerearendofhisplow,thatthe
accidentresultedeitherfromMrs.Hagert'sfailuretomaintainaproperlookoutorbecauseshewasoverdrivingherrangeofvision
withinherlightswhiledrivingwiththemondim.

Thiscourthasheldthatthequestionofwhetheranewtrialshouldbegranteduponthegroundofinsufficiencyoftheevidencerests
largelyinthetrialcourt'ssounddiscretion.Anyactionwhichthetrialcourttakesonsuchmotionwillnotbedisturbedbythiscourton
appealintheabsenceofashowingofabuseofsuchdiscreation.Muhlhauserv.ArchieCampbellConstructionCo.,160N.W.2d524
(N.D.1968)Sucherv.OliverMercerElectric,151N.W.2d321(N.D.1967)Grenzv.Werre,129N.W.2d681(N.D.1964)Stokesv.
Dailey,97N.W.2d676(N.D.1959)Hamrev.Senger,79N.W.2d41(N.D.1956).

Thediscretionofthetrialcourtinpassingonsuchmotionisalegaldiscretiontobeexercisedintheinterestsofjustice.Muhlhauser
v.ArchieCampbellConstructionCo.,supraSucherv.OliverMercerElectric,supraMaierv.Holzer,123N.W.2d29(N.D.1963)
Mannv.Policyholders'Nat.LifeIns.Co.,78N.D.724,51N.W.2d853(1952).

Beforethetrialcourtcanexerciseitsdiscretionindecidingamotionforanewtrialonthegroundofinsufficiencyoftheevidence,
690 theremustbesufficientevidence*690intherecordsothatadecisioncouldbemadeeitherway.McDermottv.Sway,78N.D.521,
50N.W.2d235(1951)Kohlmanv.Hyland,56N.D.772,219N.W.228(1928).

However,inpassingonthismotion,certainlegalprinciplesmustbekeptinmind.Weoftenhaveheldthatquestionsofnegligence,
contributorynegligence,andproximatecausearequestionsoffactforthejury,unlesstheevidenceissuchthatreasonablemen
candrawbutoneconclusiontherefrom,whentheythenbecomequestionsoflaw.Glesonv.Thompson,154N.W.2d780
(N.D.1967)Sucherv.OliverMercerElectric,supraGrenzv.Werre,supra.

Indeterminingthesufficiencyoftheevidencetosustaintheverdict,theevidencemustbeviewedinthelightmostfavorabletothe
verdict.Glesonv.Thompson,supraGrenzv.Werre,supra.

Thetrialcourtdidnotspecificallyruleonthisallegedspecificationoferror,butheldthatalloftheotherspecificationsoferror
allegedwerewithoutmerit.Thetrialcourtthusbyimplicationruledthattheevidencewassufficienttojustifytheverdictofthejury
whenitdeniedLeake'smotionforanewtrial.

Weconclude,afterviewingtheentirerecord,thattheevidencewassuchthattheverdictofthejurycouldhavegoneeitherway,and
thatreasonablemencouldhavedrawndifferentconclusionsfromtheevidence.Thejurybroughtinaverdictdismissingthe
plaintiff'scauseofactionandalsodismissingthedefendant'scounterclaim.ThejurymusthavefoundthatMrs.Hagertwas
negligentandthatLeakewascontributorilynegligent.Leakecontendsthat,asamatteroflaw,Mrs.Hagertwasnegligentand
https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar_case?case=7309910935800465827&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2bmdlLrTAhWBebwK 8/10
4/23/2017 Leake v. Hagert, 175 NW 2d 675 - ND: Supreme Court 1970 - Google Scholar
thereforethejuryshouldhavereturnedaverdictinhisfavor.Leakehasfailedtoconsiderthequestionofhiscontributory
negligence.TheevidenceinthecasepresentsaquestionoffactastowhetherLeake,whiledrivingatnight,hadproperlightsand
reflectorsonhistractorandplow,asrequiredby392115,N.D.C.C.,whichthejurycouldconsiderasevidenceofLeake's
negligenceandMrs.Hagert'snegligence,bothofwhichwereproximatecausesoftheaccident.Wedeterminethatthejury'sverdict
thattheplaintiffwascontributorilynegligentisamplysupportedbytheevidence.Therefore,thetrialcourtdidnotabuseits
discretionindenyingLeakeanewtrial.

Leakeassertsthathewaspreventedfromhavingafairtrialbecauseofcertainirregularitiesoccurringduringthecourseofthetrial.
Leakesubmitsthathewasprejudicedbytherulingsandcommentsofthecourtastotheadmissionofcertainevidence,aswellas
bythetrialcourt'sadmonishmentstoLeake'scounselinopencourt.Generally,wherealitigantwishestotakeadvantageof
irregularitiesoccurringduringthecourseofatrial,eitheronthepartofthecourt,thejury,theadverseparties,oranyoneactingfor
orontheirbehalf,hemustdosoatthetimetheirregularitiesoccur,inorderthatthecourtmaytakeappropriateaction,ifpossible,
toremedyanyprejudicethatmayhaveresulted.Braunv.Riskedahl,150N.W.2d577(N.D.1967).Andwhennoobjectionismade
atthetimethatacommentismadebythejudgeandnorequestismadeforacurativeinstructiontothejuryconcerningthe
comment,anappellantwaivesanyrighttourgethecommentaserroronappeal.Glesonv.Thompson,supra.

Wehavereviewedeachspecificationoferrorinlightofthecontextinwhicheachwasmade,asitappearsintherecord,andfind
thatnoneoftheallegationsoferrorwereobjectedtobycounsel,exceptone,andatnotimedidcounselrequestthatthecourtgive
acurativeinstructiontothejury.Leakeobjectedtothecourt'sadmonishmentofhiscounsel,whenthecourtadvisedbothcounselto
keeptheirbloodpressuresdownandthenreferredtotheconductofLeake'scounselasbeingthe"worstofthewholebunch".The
691 trialcourtisvestedwiththepoweranddutyof*691preservingorder,ofenforcingobediencetolawfulordersandprocess,of
controllingthewitnessesandtheconductofcounselandmaytakenecessaryprecautionstoensurethatthepartiesreceiveafair
andimpartialtrial.53Am.Jur.,Trial34,p.4988C.J.S.Trial36,p.91.Seealso271001and271003,N.D.C.C.Therewas
acontinuouscolloquybetweencounsel,asisevidencedfromtherecord,andbothattorneyswereveryenergeticallyrepresenting
theirclientsandtheiractionsreachedapointwherethetrialjudgewasrequiredtoadmonishthem.Wedonotbelievefroma
perusaloftherecordthatLeakewasprejudicedbythetrialcourt'sadmonishments.

Leakecontendsthathisrighttoafairtrialwasprejudicedwhen,throughaccidentorsurprisewhichordinaryprudencecouldnot
haveguardedagainst,theplaintiff'sattorneywasinformedaftertheverdict,thatLewisNelson,theforemanofthejury,hadbeen
involvedinasimilaraccidentanddidnotsoadvisecounsel,onquestioning,ofthatfactonvoirdire.Rule59(b),N.D.R.Civ.P.,sets
forththegroundsforanewtrialandaccidentorsurprisementionedinRule59(b)(3)[identicallanguageusedin281902(3),
NorthDakotaRevisedCodeof1943,whichstatutewassupersededbytheRule]asgroundsforanewtrialdenotesanoccurrence
outoftheusualcourseofeventswhichhappenssuddenlyorunexpectedly,withoutanydesignonthepartofthepersonaffected
andwhichordinaryprudencecouldnothaveguardedagainst.SeeHamrev.Senger,79N.W.2d41(N.D.1956)Bairdv.Kensal
Light&PowerCo.,63N.D.88,246N.W.279(1933).

LeakestrenuouslyurgesthatlearningthatJurorLewisNelsonhadbeeninvolvedinasimilaraccidentwasunexpectedanda
surprise,andthatifsuchinformationhadbeenknown,JurorNelsonwouldhavebeenexcusedfromservingasajurorinthecase.
LeakehasfailedtoshowthatordinaryprudencecouldnothaveguardedagainstthisoversightonLeake'spart.Thereisno
transcriptofthevoirdireofthejurytosupportthecontentionthatLewisNelsonwasaskedspecificallywhetherhehadbeen
involvedinasimilaraccident.Thiscourt,withoutsucharecordcannotassumethatsuchquestionwasasked,andthereforewefind
thatLeakehasfailedtosustaintherequiredburdenofproof.EvenifwewouldassumethatLewisNelsonwasaskedabouthis
similaraccident,LeakewouldberequiredtoshowthathewaswithoutknowledgethatLewisNelsonhadexperiencedasimilar
accidentandalsoshowthathecouldnothaveacquiredsuchinformationthroughdiligenteffortonhispart.Inaddition,thiscourt
hassaidthatanewtrialwillnotordinarilybegrantedforaccidentorsurpriseunlessitappearsprobablethat,exceptforthesurprise
oraccident,adifferentverdictwouldhavebeenrenderedoranewtrialwillprobablyresultinachangedverdict.Hamrev.Senger,
supra.However,wedonotreachthisissuebecausewefindthatinthecaseatbartherewasnobasisonwhichtodetermine
whethertherewasaccidentorsurpriseinvolved.

Leake'sattorneymadeamotiontoamendthespecificationsoferrorinsupportofLeake'smotionforanewtrial.Leakeallegesthat
itwaserrorforthetrialcourttorefusetograntthejury'srequesttohavethetestimonyofScottBosardreadtothem.Therequest
wasmadetothecourtwhenbothpartiesandtheirattorneyswerenotpresentincourt.ThetrialjudgetelephonedLeake'sattorney
andinformedhimofthejury'srequestandthattherequestwasgoingtobedenied.Leake'sattorneydidnotobjecttosuchaction
takenbythetrialcourt,excepttospecifyitaserrorinhismotionforanewtrialandalsoonappealtothiscourt.

https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar_case?case=7309910935800465827&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2bmdlLrTAhWBebwK 9/10
4/23/2017 Leake v. Hagert, 175 NW 2d 675 - ND: Supreme Court 1970 - Google Scholar
LeakecontendsthatFerdererv.NorthernPacificRy.Co.,75N.D.139,26N.W.2d236(1947),iscontrolling,wherethecourtsaid
thattherequirementsof281419oftheNorthDakotaRevisedCodeof1943[281419,N.D.C.C.]aremandatoryandthatany
692 failuretocomplywiththissectioniserrorperseandis*692deemedprejudicialuntilthecontraryisshown.IntheFerderercasethe
trialcourtenteredthejuryroomandgaveadditionaloralinstructionsintheabsenceofthecourtreport,andintheabsenceand
withouttheconsentofornoticetothepartiesortheirattorneys.TheholdingintheFerderercaseislimitedtothemandatory
requirementthatwhenanyadditionalinformationisactuallygiventothejuryaftertheyhaveretiredfordeliberation,such
informationmustbegiveninthepresenceofthepartiesortheirattorneysoronlyafternoticehasbeengiventothepartiesortheir
attorneysthatsuchinformationwillbegivenatacertaintime,inthecourtroom,atwhichtimetheymaybepresent.This
requirementstillisthelawinNorthDakota.However,inthecaseatbar,thisparticularspecificationoferrorisnotdirectedto
additionalinformationwhichwasgiventothejury,but,onthecontrary,tothefailuretogivecertaininformation.Wherethecourt
doesnothonorthejuror'srequest,ithasbeenfoundnottobeerror.Tschosikv.Meier,110N.W.2d97(N.D.1961).Webelievethat
inthisrespectthetrialcourthasdiscretionarypowertodeterminewhethertestimonyshouldbereadtothejury.281419,
N.D.C.C.See50A.L.R.2d176.Eachcasemustbedecideduponitsownfacts.Thetimewhentherequestismadetothecourtis
importantbecause,beforethetrialcourtgrantsajury'srequestforadditionalinformation,thecourtmustgivenoticetothepartiesor
totheirattorneys.Intheinstantcase,thepartiesandtheirattorneyswerenotpresentwhenthejuryrequestedthatScottBosard's
testimonybereadtothem.Thetrialjudgenotifiedtheattorneysbytelephonethathewasgoingtorefusethejury'srequest,and
Leake'sattorneydidnotobjectatthetimetosuchrefusal.Assuming,withoutdeciding,thatthejurywasentitledtohavethe
reporter'sminutesofthetestimonyofScottBosardreadtothem,wecannotagreewithLeakethatthefailuretohavesuch
testimonyreadconstitutesgroundsforareversaloftheverdictwhereLeakefailedtoobjectpriortotherenditionoftheverdictand
thetrialcourtdidnotfurnishthejurywiththeadditionalinformationrequested.

Forreasonsstatedintheopinion,theorderdenyingthemotionforanewtrialandthejudgmentareaffirmed.

TEIGEN,C.J.,andERICKSTAD,STRUTZandKNUDSON,JJ.,concur.

SavetreesreadcourtopinionsonlineonGoogleScholar.

https://scholar.google.com.ph/scholar_case?case=7309910935800465827&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2bmdlLrTAhWBebw 10/10