Opinion ID: 2168065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prejudicial Character of Errors.

Text: We now pass on to the question of whether the erroneous ruling excluding the Patricia Mack statement and the errors in instructions were prejudicial to appellants so as to require the ordering of a new trial. We cannot escape the conclusion that these errors probably affected the jury's answer to the question of the verdict which inquired whether Taft was negligent in stopping his car on a public highway. There are three factors which impel us to the conclusion that these errors probably had this result. First, some of the errors in the instructions were of a character which would be likely to influence a jury in the direction of finding Taft negligent. Second, this finding of negligence is against the great weight of the evidence. Lastly, the jury only attributed 15 percent of the aggregate negligence to Taft, thus indicating that it would not have taken much to tip the scales the other way and find him not negligent. Thus, we conclude that a new trial is necessitated by the errors which occurred. The new trial will be ordered on all issues inasmuch as plaintiffs have so requested. By the Court. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial not inconsistent with this opinion.