By applying Rule 15, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the amended answer did not prejudice Appellant. Accordingly, it was not error for the trial court to allow the amendment. Comparative Fault Appellant argues that the trial court erred in submitting to the jury an instruction on comparative fault. Appellant argues that the comparative negligence instruction should not have been given because there was no showing that Appellant proximately caused the dog's attack. Appellee replies that the question to be asked is whether Appellant's actions could have proximately caused her injuries.
Comparative fault is an affirmative defense.
In all actions for damages for personal injuries . . . in which recovery is predicated upon fault, liability shall be determined by comparing the fault chargeable to a claiming party with the fault chargeable to the party . . . Proximate cause is a cause which, in a natural and continued sequence, produces damage, and without which the damage would not have occurred. While the question of proximate cause is usually a question for the jury, when the evidence is such that reasonable minds cannot differ, the issue becomes a question of law to be determined by the trial court. This court held that the judge was correct in submitting the case to the jury on the basis of comparative fault, rather than on the theory of strict liability. There was a fact question as to whether appellant was a trespasser or a licensee when he was bitten by appellees' dog, since he was on private property and had not been expressly invited there.