(dissenting):
I would affirm the judgment based on the jury verdict.
This case involves an appeal from (1) an order denying plaintiffs a new trial, (2) an order denying entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and (3) the judgment.
The district court’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial is clearly correct. The motion was defective in failing to state the grounds with particularity. Halsey v. Uithof, Mont., 532 P.2d 686, 690, 32 St.Rep. 89.
Nor are plaintiffs entitled to entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the reasons stated in the majority opinion.
The majority concludes that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury verdict because defendant’s negligence is established as a matter of law and failure of proof of intervening negligence on the part of the driver of the panel truck. In my view these are both jury questions decided adversely to plaintiffs.
A jury could well conclude that the accident here was not caused by negligent driving. The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party shows that defendant was driving at a speed of ten miles an hour on an icy street and was able to stop the forward motion of his car without impact, but that it slid or skidded sideways when the forward momentum ceased striking the rear of plaintiffs’ car.
Nor do I believe that proximate cause is established as a matter of law. This is patently a jury question resolved against plaintiffs.
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.