Opinion ID: 883733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Plaintiff's Proposed Instructions #19 and 21

Text: Contreras offered Instruction #19: The services of experts are sought because of their special skill. They have a duty to exercise the ordinary skill and competence of members of their profession and a failure to discharge that duty will subject them to liability for negligence. Those who hire such persons are not justified in expecting infallibility, but can expect only reasonable care and competence. This instruction requires the jury to find negligence when service people are not skilled enough nor competent. No evidence was introduced at trial that any of the service people involved lacked the appropriate skills needed to satisfy their contract with the City or that they were somehow incompetent. This instruction is misleading because it assumes that the service people involved had a duty which, we have already stated, cannot be assumed under the facts of this case. Proposed Instruction #21 stated: Defendant and its employees owed a duty to perform its work with reasonable care and skill so as not to cause injury to the person of another. The court gave instruction #11 which stated that Every person is responsible for injury to the person or property of another, caused by his or her negligence. Contreras' version is confusing as it could be construed by the jury as a directed verdict on the element of duty. As mentioned before, whether the element of duty was satisfied depended upon the set of facts that the jury found to be true.