Volume 153 — Indiana Appellate Court Reports

1. APPEAL — <italic>Standard of Review — Attack of Negative Decision.</italic> — A decision against one with the burden of proof is referred to as a negative decision and may not be attacked on the basis that it is not sustained by sufficient evidence. A negative decision may only be attacked as being contrary to law. p. 306. 2. APPEAL — <italic>Standard of Review — Decision Contrary to Law.</italic> — It is only where the evidence is without conflict and leads to only one conclusion and the Trial Court reached a contrary conclusion that the decision will be disturbed as contrary to law i.e., where it affirmatively appears that reasonable men could not have arrived at the same judgment or conclusion. p. 306. 3. CONTRACTS — <italic>Implied Contract.</italic> — An implied contract, or a contract implied in fact, is a true contract and as such requires mutual assent. If there has been a meeting of the minds and the clear intent of the parties to the transaction is evidenced by their acts and conduct viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances, then the<page_number>Page 305</page_number> resultant implied contract differs from an express contract only in the mode of proof. p. 307. 4. CONTRACTS — <italic>Constructive or Quasi Contract.</italic> — Contracts implied in law, more properly termed constructive or quasi contracts, are not contracts in the true sense. They rest on a legal fiction imposed by law without regard to assent of the parties. They arise from reason, law, and natural equity, and are clothed with the semblance of contract for the purpose of remedy. No action can lie in quasi contract unless one party is wrongfully enriched at the expense of another. p. 308.

1. NEGLIGENCE — <italic>Contributory Negligence.</italic> — The rule in Indiana is very clear that contributory negligence is generally a question of fact for the jury and it is only where the facts are undisputed and where a single inference can be drawn from the facts that the court may say, as a matter of law, that certain facts constitute contributory negligence. p. 584. 2. NEGLIGENCE — <italic>Speed.</italic> — The rule in Indiana is very clear that speed, in and of itself, in the absence of a regulating statute or ordinance, does not constitute negligence but such speed may constitute negligence in the light of all the surrounding circumstances. p. 584. 3. NEGLIGENCE — <italic>Railroad Crossings.</italic> — A railroad is under a duty to use due care in the operation of trains at private crossings and this necessarily includes the duty to operate such trains at a reasonable speed under the circumstances. p. 586. 4. APPEAL — <italic>Standard of Review.</italic> — The reviewing court will not weigh the evidence if there is any evidence or reasonable inference which may be drawn from the evidence to support the verdict and the findings of the jury. p. 589.