Opinion ID: 883122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the District Court err by failing to instruct on each element of Buhr's negligence per se claim?

Text: Buhr makes a passing assertion in his brief that the jury instructions failed to set out each element of his negligence per se claim. During oral argument, however, Buhr's counsel conceded that the given instructions contained all the elements of the negligence per se claim. He argued instead that the given instructions were lengthy and confusing to the jury. The general rule in Montana is that [i]f the given instructions, when viewed in their entirety, state the correct law applicable to the case, there is no reversible error. Walden v. State (1991), 250 Mont. 132, 137, 818 P.2d 1190, 1193. Except as discussed below, Buhr does not contend that the instructions failed to state the law applicable to his case. Therefore, we conclude that the District Court did not err in giving instructions which, although lengthy, instructed the jury on the correct law applicable to Buhr's negligence per se claims.