“The term casual denotes a fortuitous happening, an irregular occurrence which is occasional, incidental, temporary, haphazard, unplanned and with no fixed duration of time.”
How later courts described this case
- “The term casual denotes a fortuitous happening, an irregular occurrence which is occasional, incidental, temporary, haphazard, unplanned and with no fixed duration of time.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MONTGOMERY, Judge
concurring and dissenting:
Although I concur in the majority’s disposition of the issues raised by the Defendant-Appellants Showco and Recker, I dissent from that portion of the opinion which resolves the sole issue raised by the Martins in their cross-appeal. In my judgment, it is not necessary for us to reach this issue as the Martins do not wish to press the issue in the event the cross-appellants are denied relief.
In the Martins’ brief, it is written: “In the event a new trial is granted to Defendants, Plaintiffs request that they be granted a new trial and be permitted to introduce *545 evidence of Plaintiffs wage loss and medical expenses.” (Emphasis in original.) Also, in their conclusion at page 82 of their brief, the Martins write:
In the event this matter is remanded for a new trial as prayed for by Appellant, Showeo, Inc., William C. Martin, III, and Louise Martin pray that they be awarded a new trial and that they be permitted to introduce evidence of Mr. Martin’s wage loss and medical expense suffered as a result of the accident giving rise to the within action.
In my view, these statements are sufficiently specific for us not to reach the Martins’ no-fault issue. This is especially true since the award of a new trial has been granted by the majority solely because of the resolution of the issue raised by the Martins. Forcing the Martins to retry their case, when they are perfectly willing to accept the verdict awarded by the jury, will expose them to further unnecessary delay and significant unwarranted pressure to settle their claims with the defendants. Additionally, I find no reason to increase the burden of an already over-burdened trial court docket.
I would, therefore, affirm the judgment entered on the verdict and dismiss the cross-appeal by the Martins.