Opinion ID: 1983749
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instructions Contributory Negligence

Text: In this case, the Superior Court's instructions regarding negligence and proximate cause made reference only to OCF and the settling defendants. Thus, if you find that the defendant [OCF] and one or more of the companies [settling defendants] breached a duty to plaintiffs and that breach proximately caused the plaintiffs' [decedents'] injuries, you will determine the degree of fault of the defendant [OCF] and of each company [settling defendant]. The expert witnesses for the plaintiffs and OCF testified that cigarette smoking was one of the proximate causes of the decedents' lung cancer. In fact, OCF's experts testified that cigarette smoking was the sole proximate cause of the decedents' lung cancer. The Superior Court, however, refused to instruct the jury regarding the issue of the contributory negligence of the decedents. In view of the experts' testimony, this Court has concluded that the Superior Court erred by not instructing the jury on the issue of the decedents' contributory negligence, due to cigarette smoking, as a proximate cause of their lung cancer. McNally v. Eckman, Del. Supr., 466 A.2d 363, 370-71 (1983). Cf., Money v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Disease Compensation Trust Fund, Del.Supr., 596 A.2d 1372 (1991). Accord Champagne v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 212 Conn. 509, 562 A.2d 1100, 1118-1122 (1989); Brisboy v. Fibreboard, 429 Mich. 540, 418 N.W.2d 650 (1988).