Opinion ID: 2036630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: instruction regarding allocation of negligence

Text: Pleiss claims the trial court erred in failing to fully instruct the jury on the effect of the allocation of negligence as required by § 25-21,185.09. Section 25-21,185.09 provides that in cases involving contributory negligence, the jury shall be instructed on the effects of the allocation of negligence. The trial court determined that this information was included in instruction No. 15, which explained which verdict forms to fill out based on the allocations of negligence. The trial court refused to give the instruction requested by Pleiss. To establish reversible error from a court's failure to give a requested instruction, an appellant has the burden of showing that (1) the tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law, (2) the tendered instruction is warranted by the evidence, and (3) the appellant was prejudiced by the court's failure to give the tendered instruction. Streeks v. Diamond Hill Farms, 258 Neb. 581, 605 N.W.2d 110 (2000). Pleiss' tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law. In Wheeler v. Bagley, 254 Neb. 232, 575 N.W.2d 616 (1998), this court offered a suggested instruction to the bar and trial courts as a guideline to be utilized in single-defendant negligence cases to inform the jury about the effect of the allocation of negligence as required by § 25-21,185.09. The present case is a single-defendant negligence case, and the instruction proposed by Pleiss and refused by the trial court is nearly identical to the instruction suggested by this court in Wheeler. In Wheeler, 254 Neb. at 241, 575 N.W.2d at 621, this court held that failure to instruct a jury with respect to the effects of its allocation of negligence in accordance with § 25-21,185.09 is prejudicial error. We further determined that a verdict form is not a substitute for a proper instruction and that the verdict form utilized in Wheeler did not adequately convey the effects of the allocation of negligence in any event. Id. In the present case, the trial court determined that the information explaining the effect of the allocation of negligence was included as part of instruction No. 15. Instruction No. 15 provides in part, If you find that the Plaintiff has not met his burden of proof you should complete Verdict Form No. 1 and advise the Bailiff you have reached a verdict and go no further. Barnes claims that because the jury completed verdict form No. 1, finding in favor of Barnes, the jury never reached the issue of contributory negligence. Thus, Barnes contends that Pleiss was not prejudiced by the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the effect of its allocation of negligence. Barnes' contention is without merit. In Wheeler, we rejected the so-called blindfold rule and held that § 25-21,185.09 mandates that the trial court instruct the jury on the effect of the allocation of negligence and that failure to do so is prejudicial error requiring reversal. We note that during the pendency of this appeal, the Court of Appeals decided Hess v. Heger, 9 Neb.App. 748, 9 Neb.App. 748 (2000), which held that failure to instruct on the allocation of negligence was harmless error. To the extent that Hess conflicts with this opinion, it is expressly disapproved. Having determined that the trial court's failure to fully instruct the jury on the allocation of negligence requires reversal, we address only Pleiss' remaining assignments of error involving issues that are likely to arise again on retrial.