Opinion ID: 2615017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: since in the mother's claim there was at least some evidence of her contributory negligence, a contributory negligence instruction should have been given

Text: The doctors urged the mother should have told them she had Rh-negative blood and that she had been given Rho-GAM in the past. According to the mother, even if she had a duty to volunteer this information and failed to do so, her silence could not, as a matter of law, be the proximate cause of her injuries. The mother contends that the evidence did not support an instruction on contributory negligence because the doctors had an independent duty to test her blood or find out her blood type from the hospital records of an earlier pregnancy. The mother urges that just as a principal who bears a non-delegable duty remains liable for a tort committed by an independent contractor, [73] the doctors may not shift to her their duty to test her blood. This analogy is not entirely correct; the doctors have not tried to escape liability by delegating a duty to an independent contractor. The defense of contributory negligence does not even arise unless the defendant has been guilty of negligence which, but for this defense, would render it liable to the plaintiff. [74] The jury would have to decide that the doctors were negligent before it could find that the mother was contributorily negligent. Oklahoma constitutional [75] and statutory law [76] provide that the defense of contributory negligence shall always be a question of fact and must be left to the jury in all cases. For a trial court to take contributory negligence away from the jury, there must be a complete lack of contributory negligence evidence. [77] The mother did not remember whether she told the doctors that she has Rh-negative blood or had received Rho-GAM in the past. She admitted it was probable that she had not told them. The evidence shows that the mother knew her blood type and had been told earlier about the importance of receiving Rho-GAM. Several doctors and nurses testified that they would expect a patient to volunteer this vital information, even if not asked. Dr. Loerke testified that if the mother had advised someone she was Rh-negative, action would have been taken. It was hence for the jury to decide whether, under the particular circumstances surrounding the critical events unfolded below, failure to disclose this vital information was a patient's contributory negligence. [78] Proximate cause is but an element of contributory negligence; the issue must be left to the jury where the facts are disputed, as they are in the case here for review. [79] The trial court did not err by submitting contributory negligence [80] to the jury under an instruction that allowed the jury to find for the defendants on any of the theories supported by the evidence. [81]