Opinion ID: 1688786
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the trial court err in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of contributory negligence?

Text: We think not. Defendants contend in their brief that plaintiff admitted that he would expect to see [a hay rake] on this road, that the presence of the hay rake was no surprise, that he knew it was dangerous to be riding the motorcycle, that he knew he was coming into a curve, that he had enough room to get by the hay rake, that he could have missed this hay rake if he had been travelling slower, and that [t]wo witnesses testified that plaintiff admitted at the scene that the accident was his fault. We have examined the specific testimony of the plaintiff to which the defendants refer and we are of the opinion that there was sufficient testimony for the jury to conclude that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributing to his injuries. For example, he testified, in substance, that although he was not surprised to see a farm vehicle on the road, he was obeying all traffic laws and that he slowed down to 30 m.p.h. when he entered the curve, but that there would have been no way to avoid the rake without running off the road. Plaintiff did make what the jury could have determined was an admission of fault: A: Well, he was hurting real bad and he said, Oh God, I am going to lose my leg. And, he said, I am sorry, it was my fault. Q: You heard him say that? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: Who was he talking to? A: Well, he was talking to me and Jimmy I reckon, he wasn't looking at either one of us. In context, this statement could have been taken by the jury to mean that he was blaming himself for getting hurt. One of the defendants' witnesses testified that the essence of the plaintiff's statement made at the scene when he was hurting was: I shouldn't have been on the motorcycle. The jury apparently did not find that the plaintiff's conduct and statements showed him to be guilty of contributory negligence. We hold, therefore, that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a directed verdict or new trial based on the claim of contributory negligence.