# Crist, Inc. v. Whitacre

> Indiana Court of Appeals · August 11, 1970 · 147 Ind. App. 16

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9723781

## Case

- **Full name:** Crist, Inc. and John Crist v. Whitacre
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 11, 1970
- **Citations:** 147 Ind. App. 16; 258 N.E.2d 165; 1970 Ind. App. LEXIS 357
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by White
- **Judges:** White, Hoffman, Pfaff, Sharp
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9723781

## Opinion text

On Petitions For Rehearing
White, J.
Both appellee and appellants have filed petitions for rehearing. Both allege that our decision contravenes ruling precedent of the Supreme Court. The extent to which that is true, and the reasons therefor, are sufficiently discussed in our initial opinion. Since we remain convinced that those prece *28 dents are obsolete, we see no reason to discuss them further. Other grounds for rehearing appear to merit no specific mention. As to rehearing, both petitions are denied.
The appellants’ petition, however, includes the alternative prayer that our mandate be modified to limit the new trial to the single issue of the liability pursuant to the direction of Rule AP 15 (M) that “if a new trial is required it shall be limited only to those parties and issues affected by the error unless such relief is shown to be impracticable or unfair”. Since the error necessitating reversal relates only to liability and does not affect the verdict as to the amount of the plaintiff’s damages we agree that our mandate should be modified. It is therefore modified to read:
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to the trial court to grant appellant a new trial to be conducted in conformity with the views expressed in our initial opinion and with the issues thereof limited to the question of whether the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for his damages resulting from the injury described in the complaint. If the verdict or decision is for the plaintiff the court shall enter judgment in his favor against both defendants in the sum of $15,000.00, to bear interest at the rate of 6% (per cent) per annum from the date of the first verdict and costs. If the verdict 1 or finding be for the defendants, judgment shall be that plaintiff take nothing and that defendants recover their costs.
Hoffman, P.J., Sharp and Pfaff, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 260 N. E. 2d 893 .
. Burns IND. STAT. ANN. § 19-12-102 (1964 Repl.); Hemstock v. Wood (1942), 113 Ind. App. 112, 119, 120 , 44 N. E. 2d 1016 . “To prevent controversy, and to aid the clerk in the performance of his duties in the matter of entering satisfaction of the judgment in such cases, the judgment should be for the sum awarded, together with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent, per annum from the specified date of the return of the verdict until the judgment shall be satisfied.” Lake Erie etc., R. Co. v. Huffman (1912), 177 Ind. 126, 147 , 97 N. E. 434 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9723781. Public record. Not legal advice.