Opinion ID: 2180005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proximate Cause Instruction Accurate

Text: Russell's second contention relates to the following instruction by the Superior Court on the issue of proximate cause: [N]egligence alone is not enough to hold a party liable. The party's negligence must also be a cause of the claimed injuries or harm. Whenever I use the term cause, I mean proximate cause. Proximate cause is a legal term meaning a cause which brings about a result and without which the result would not have followed. Negligence is considered a proximate cause of an injury when the injury would not have happened but for the negligence. The but for test is your guide in determining proximate cause. Even if you believe a party acted negligently, unless you are convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that such negligence was a proximate cause of the claimed injury, that party cannot be held responsible. Now there may be more than one proximate cause to an accident and/or injury. Russell's challenge to the proximate cause jury instruction is based on the fact that the Superior Court did not instruct the jury strictly in accordance with the Pattern Jury Instructions for Civil Practice. The Pattern Jury Instructions for Civil Practice were first promulgated in 1997 by a Superior Court committee. The Disclaimer on the title page of those pattern instructions provides: The following civil jury instructions were compiled as a reference guide for the benefit of practitioners in Superior Court. The instructions are merely advisory and the practitioner should not use these instructions without also reviewing the applicable statutes, court rules, and case law. While the Review Committee has made every effort to conform these instructions to the prevailing law, they are always subject to review by the Supreme Court. The Pattern Jury Instructions for Civil Practice reflect the collective effort of several distinguished jurists and practicing attorneys. Although those pattern jury instructions are a valuable resource for the bench and bar, their promulgation did not alter the applicable standards of appellate review. [4] When an instruction to a jury is challenged on appeal, this Court must determine not ... whether any special words were used, but whether the instruction correctly stated the law and enabled the jury to perform its duty. [5] A party is entitled to an instruction that is legally accurate, but is not entitled to have the jury instructed in a particular format, even if the requested format set forth is the Pattern Jury Instructions for Civil Practice. [6] Consequently, the Superior Court's decision not to instruct the jury verbatim in accordance with the pattern instructions is not a per se basis for successfully alleging error on appeal. Accordingly, the proper focus for our examination of Russell's objection in this appeal is not on whether the pattern jury instructions were given in haec verba, but whether the instructions that were given set forth an accurate statement of the law. [7] In Delaware, in order to prevail in a negligence action, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's action breached a duty of care in a way that proximately caused plaintiffs injury. [8] Since the issue of proximate cause is ordinarily a question of fact to be submitted to the jury, it is necessary for the trial judge to provide proper jury instructions on that concept. [9] In Delaware, a proximate cause is one which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred. [10] Other jurisdictions adhere to the substantial factor test, wherein the defendant is negligent if his conduct was a material element and a substantial factor in bringing about the cause of plaintiff's injury. [11] Although there may be more than one proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, our time-honored definition of proximate cause has been the but for rule, not the substantial factor test. [12] In evaluating the propriety of a jury charge, the jury instructions must be viewed as a whole. [13] Although a party is not entitled to a particular jury instruction, a party does have the unqualified right to have the jury instructed with a correct statement of the substance of the law. [14] Even if the jury instructions contain some inaccuracies, however, this Court will reverse the decision below only if the deficiencies undermined the ability of the jury `to intelligently perform its duty in returning a verdict,' thus excusing the failure to object at trial. [15] Reading the jury instructions as a whole, we find no error of law. The proximate cause instructions specifically advised the jury that proximate cause is a cause which brings about a result and without which the result would not have followed. The trial judge also advised the jury that the but for test was their guide in determining proximate cause and that there could be more than one proximate cause of an accident or injury. Thus, the instructions accurately stated the Delaware law on the issue of proximate cause.