Title: Newton v. Main
Citation: 395 P.2d 360, 96 Ariz. 319
Docket Number: 7352
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: September 24, 1964

96 Ariz. 319 (1964) 395 P.2d 360 Albert NEWTON and Fidelity Acceptance Corporation, an Arizona corporation, Appellants, v. Albert MAIN, Sr., and Albert Main, Jr., Appellees. No. 7352. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. September 24, 1964. Langerman &amp; Begam, Frank Lewis, Phoenix, for appellants. Snell &amp; Wilmer by Mark Wilmer, Donald R. Kunz and Paul V. Wentworth, Phoenix, for appellees. *320 LOCKWOOD, Vice Chief Justice. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a personal injury action from a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant. The facts concerning the injury are immaterial for the purpose of this appeal. Plaintiff's only assertion of error concerns an instruction given by the trial judge to the jury on the issue of contributory negligence. The instruction in question is as follows: Plaintiff contends that what was otherwise a valid and correct instruction was made incorrect by the addition of the last clause. Plaintiff's analysis of this clause is that it leads to any or all of the following conclusions: (1) that plaintiff's evidence must clearly and unequivocally show he was free of contributory negligence; (2) the burden on the issue of contributory negligence is shifted to the plaintiff if any of the evidence offered by the plaintiff shows he was guilty of contributory negligence; (3) if evidence offered by the plaintiff shows negligence, the jury should find for the defendant even if the plaintiff's negligence was not a proximate cause of his injury; (4) if, after considering all of the evidence, it is the jury's judgment that the defendant has not proved the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the jury must still find for the defendant on the issue of contributory negligence if any evidence offered by the plaintiff shows contributory negligence. In considering the use of language in law it is well to bear in mind Justice Holmes' admonition that: As with particular words, the particular phrase in question is also "the skin of a living thought". Its color and content may *321 best be determined by considering the circumstances in which it was used. In an earlier part of his instructions the trial judge charged the jury as follows: Immediately after the instruction in question the trial judge told the jury: This court has stated many times that instructions cannot be considered piecemeal, but must be taken as a whole. Tenney v. Enkeball, 62 Ariz. 416, 158 P.2d 519 (1945); Humphrey v. Atchison, T. &amp; S.F. Ry. Co., 50 Ariz. 167, 70 P.2d 319 (1937). The test to be used in determining the correctness of instructions is whether upon the whole charge the jury will gather the proper rules to be applied in arriving at a correct decision. Rosendahl v. Tucson Medical Center, 93 Ariz. 368, 380 P.2d 1020 (1963); Musgrave v. Githens, 80 Ariz. 188, *322 294 P.2d 674 (1956); Daly v. Williams, 78 Ariz. 382, 280 P.2d 701 (1955). In the instant case could the jury, considering the whole charge, gather the proper rules to be applied in arriving at a correct decision? The proper rule for the jury to apply in this situation is that the defendant bears the burden of persuasion or the risk of non-persuasion as to whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The function of this rule is to permit the jury to determine which party shall prevail on the issue of contributory negligence in case their minds are in a position of equilibrium on the issue. The trial judge made this point quite clear when he said: In the context of the whole charge it is clear that the jury could gather the proper rule to apply in arriving at a correct decision as to which party should prevail on the issue of contributory negligence. Judgment affirmed. UDALL, C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, BERNSTEIN, and SCRUGGS, JJ., concurring.