SPARKS v. BERNTSEN ET AL (1941)

It is urged by respondents upon petition for rehearing that the first verdicts were informal and insufficient, and that the trial court properly granted their motion to have them returned to the jury for correction, under the provisions of section 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such application must be made, however, “When the verdict is announced”. The motion was not made at the time specified by the statute, but after the jury had been polled. Under such circumstances, and in the language of section 618 of said code, “the verdict is complete” and the motion was therefore made too late.

The verdicts against the operator, in each case, were not informal nor were they insufficient. They therefore did not come within the provisions of said section 619. The only question that could be raised thereafter was with reference to the verdicts against the owner of the car. This court modified the latter only, to conform to the law. The judgment upon the second verdict was also entered with a modification by the trial court of the verdict against the owner.

As to the contention that the jury showed an intention to allow plaintiff damages in the sum of $11,000 (assuming that such contention has any pertinency) the answer is that such verdict provided in the Sparks case that “we assess damages against defendant Paul Anker Berntsen (the operator), in the sum of $8,000, and assess damages against defendant Reidar Enge (the owner) in the sum of $3,000.00”. As to the operator, this amount is exactly what we have held to be the correct one. As against the owner, we have held that respondent was entitled to $5,000, which is $2,000 in excess of the amount of the second award, and the precise amount of the judgment which respondents are seeking to uphold. The verdicts for the other two plaintiffs are similar, and in each of those we have ordered a judgment which, as against the operator, is exactly what the verdict specifies. Against the owner, we have ordered judgments which increase the awards.

Under such facts, the assertion by respondents that our decision has resulted in “a miscarriage of justice” would seem to lack substance.

Rehearing denied.

PER CURIAM.