Opinion ID: 1720569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant raised various objections to the instructions. We consider only Instruction 12 in detail.

Text: This instruction was as follows: In order for the plaintiff, Marie R. Bauman, to recover in this case against the defendant, City of Waverly, the burden is upon her to establish by a greater weight or preponderance of the evidence all of the following propositions: 1. That the defendant was negligent in one or more of the particulars alleged   2. That the defendant had actual knowledge of the condition of the entrance of which complaint is made, or that such condition had existed for so long a period that the defendant should in the exercise of ordinary care have ascertained such condition before the time of said accident. 3. That the negligence of the defendant, in one or more of the particulars alleged, was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. 4. That the plaintiff suffered damages and the amount thereof. If the plaintiff has established all of said propositions numbered 1 to 4 by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff and against the defendant   . If the plaintiff has failed to establish one or more of said propositions numbered 1 to 4 by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence, then the plaintiff cannot recover. (Emphasis added.) Objection was made to this instruction because it did not include a direction that plaintiff must be denied recovery if she herself was guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident. Defendant urges it permitted the jury, upon finding that the four propositions set out had been established, to return a verdict for plaintiff without considering the effect of plaintiff's own negligence on her right to recover. Before the enactment in 1965 of section 619.17, a plaintiff in an action such as this had the burden of pleading and proving his freedom from contributory negligence. Instructions in negligence cases then included as one of the elements to be proven by plaintiff freedom from contributory negligence which had contributed in any manner or in any degree to the injury. Since the change brought about by section 619.17, plaintiff's negligence has become an affirmative defense to be plead and proved by a defendant who seeks to rely thereon. Furthermore the negligence which will bar recovery is no longer that which contributes in any manner to the injury, but is only such negligence as is a proximate cause thereof. Recognizing these differences, both procedural and substantive, the Committee on Uniform Jury Instructions of the Iowa State Bar Association recommended a new jury instruction in part as follows: No. 2.2B CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCERE: TORTS ARISING ON OR AFTER JULY 4, 1965 The law of Iowa provides that if a person who has been injured or damaged was himself negligent and such negligence was a proximate cause of his injury or damage, then he cannot recover from another. This is known as the defense of contributory negligence, and the burden of proof of such defense is upon the defendant.