Opinion ID: 2430058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Instructions. Three assignments relate to instructions.

Text: (a) In Instruction No. 7 the Court read various portions of the General Flight Rules of the Civil Aeronautics Board; one portion so read being: Aircraft shall be operated at all times in compliance with the following general flight rules, and also in compliance with the visual rules which may be applicable. Appellant's objection was: And we object to the giving of the instruction in its entirety and particularly to the language, `   and also in compliance with the visual rules which may be applicable'. The appellant never made the objection any more specific than quoted. We see no merit in appellant's assignment. The jury was told that compliance with the visual flight rules related only to those    rules which may be applicable. If the jury found that none was applicable, then the appellant was not hurt. Wilson v. Southwest Casualty Co., Ark., 305 S.W.2d 677, affords appellant no solace when considered in the light of appellant's sole objection, as above quoted. If appellant thought the words, visual flight rules, should have been defined, he should have offered a definition. Lemm v. Sparks, Ark., 321 S.W.2d 388. (b) In the Instruction No. 7 the Court also read to the jury that portion of Paragraph 60.11 of the General Flight Rules, as follows: Before beginning a flight, the pilot in command of an aircraft shall familiarize himself with all available information appropriate to the intended operation. Appellant's objection to this portion of the instruction was that it was abstract. We see no merit to appellant's objection. The General Flight Rule as copied in the instruction, made it the duty of a pilot to familiarize himself with all available information appropriate to his intended operation. Part of this information was who had the priority of landing, which was Regulation 60.14(e), as previously copied. It was for the jury to decide whether Dr. Ratton was familiar with that regulation and violated it. (c) Dr. Ratton pleaded the contributory negligence of Mr. Busby as a bar to the plaintiff's recovery. The Court read to the jury Sections 1 and 2 of Act No. 296 of 1957 on contributory negligence, and then gave the jury two further paragraphs, the first of which was: Therefore, if you find from a preponderance of the evidence in this case that the defendant, Dr. Robert W. Ratton, was guilty of negligence in the operation of his plane which proximately caused or contributed to cause the damages complained of, then your verdict will be for the plaintiff, Mrs. Busby, in accordance with the measure of damages instruction hereinafter given you, unless you find that the deceased, Charles H. Busby, was guilty of contributory negligence in a degree equal to or greater than the negligence of the defendant, Dr. Robert W. Ratton, if any. The appellant does not argue that this paragraph was incorrect; but insists that at the end of the paragraph the defendant was entitled to have submitted the negative or converse. The appellant asked that the following be added at the end of the quoted paragraph: If, however, you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the deceased, Charles H. Busby, was guilty of contributory negligence in a degree equal to or greater than the negligence of the defendant, Robert W. Ratton, if any, and that such contributory negligence contributed to cause the accident, your verdict should be for the defendant, Robert W. Ratton. The appellant says that he was entitled to have his theory of the case submitted on the matter of contributory negligence, and cites, inter alia, Prescott & N. W. R. Co. v. Weldy, 80 Ark. 454, 97 S. W. 452; Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Moore, 96 Ark. 206, 131 S.W. 960; and Western Coal & Mining Co. v. Harrison, 122 Ark. 125, 182 S.W. 525. It is true that the appellant was entitled to have his theory of the case presented as to contributory negligence; but the theory was presented in the instructions as given, and there was no need for the Court to give the negative of the proposition at the conclusion of the quoted paragraph. Where the law has been clearly and adequately stated in a positive manner, ordinarily the Court need not instruct in a negative form. 88 C. J. S. Trial § 303, p. 820. II. Ruling Regarding Jury View Of The Damaged Wing Of The Cessna Plane. One wing of the Cessna plane was preserved; and appellee wanted the jury to see that damaged wing, which was too large to bring into the court room. Early in the course of the trial counsel for appellee asked the Court if the jury could go to view the damaged wing; and the Court said: You may take that up in chambers. The trial lasted five days; and on the fifth day the appellee again asked the Court if it would permit the jury to go to see the damaged wing of the Cessna plane. At first the Court said that the jury might view the wing if there was a showing that it was in the same condition as of the day of the collision; but later the Court told the jury: There has previously been an offer by counsel for the plaintiff to view certain portions of the aircraft, the Cessna aircraft involved in this collision. The jury is instructed that the statutes provide that the jury may, in the discretion of the court, view real property in litigation or the place where a particular thing happened, but in view of the fact that the testimony does not disclose that the aircraft is now in the same condition that it was at the time of the collisionthat is, assembled and so onthat the offer of view is refused, and the jury is instructed to pay no attention whatsoever to the offer of view. They should not consider the offer to view in their deliberations in any manner whatsoever. Notwithstanding this ruling, appellant insists that the appellee caused irreparable damage to the appellant by making in open Court the request that the jury view the damaged wing. It is appellant's contention, that any request that a party may make to the Court for the jury to view anything, must always be made in chambers and never in open Court, because says appellantwhen the opposing counsel objects to the view, the jury concludes that the opposing counsel is trying to conceal something. In support of his position, appellant cites, inter alia: Woodrum Truck Lines v. Bailey, Tex.Com.App., 57 S.W.2d 92; and also National Box Co. v. Bradley, 171 Miss. 15, 154 So. 724, 157 So. 91, 95 A. L. R. 1500, together with subsequent Mississippi cases. The Texas case is based on a Texas statute that prohibits views. We need not consider the Texas case, since our statute provides that the Court may allow view in certain instances. The question, then, is whether a request for the view must always be made in the absence of the jury. The Mississippi cases are strong in that regard, when the appellant duly preserves his record. But it has never been the rule in Arkansas that a request for view must in all instances be made in the absence of the jury. The Arkansas statute (§ 27-1731) vests the Trial Court with discretion in the matter of refusing or allowing the view. The statute does not say that the request for view must be made in the absence of the jury [3] ; and we would be reading into the statute something that is not there if we should so hold. The question is whether there was prejudicial error committed; and in the ruling of the Court here challenged, it is clear that there was no prejudicial error. The Court instructed the jury that there was no sufficient showing that the damaged wing of the Cessna plane was like it was the day of the collision; and in thus giving a reason for refusing the view, the Court certainly made clear to the jury the fact that it was the Court refusing the view, rather than the appellant trying to hide something. We see no prejudice resulting to the appellant in the Court's ruling.