Opinion ID: 1737864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the trial court err in granting defendant's instructions d-9 and d-11 and in denying plaintiff's p-7?

Text: Instruction D-9, as granted, reads as follows: The court instructs you that when overtaking another automobile, the passing must be effectuated in such a way as to be made completely without interference with the safe operation of the vehicle being overtaken and, if you find from the evidence that Douglas Copeland was overtaking or passing the vehicle being driven by Willie Lee Butler in a manner inconsistent with that duty, then it is your sworn duty to find that he was contributorily negligent. Instruction D-11, as granted, reads as follows: The Court instructs you that the plaintiff, Douglas Copeland, at the time of the accident, had the duty to use such care as a reasonably prudent and capable driver would under the circumstances and to continue to keep on the alert and keep a proper lookout, to anticipate the presence of other vehicles upon the streets, to constantly keep his vehicle under control, and to drive at a rate of speed as to enable him to avoid any collision with any vehicle which came into his vision or under his observation. If you find from the evidence that Douglas Copeland failed in that duty, then he was contributorily negligent. As noted under assignment of error No. 1, this Court found no evidence in the record to indicate that Copeland was contributorily negligent. No testimony was presented by the City which would indicate that Copeland was operating his vehicle in an unsafe manner. Therefore, this Court agrees with Copeland that there was no testimony to support the giving of these instructions. However, in view of the additur, the error does not require reversal. Additionally, the trial court's refusal of P-7 was proper because other instructions which were granted adequately address the burden of proof issue contained in Instruction P-7. There is no merit to this assignment of error.