Opinion ID: 1489448
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury Instructions on Comparative Negligence

Text: Appellants contend that the trial court erred in submitting an instruction to the jury which permitted a finding of comparative negligence on the part of the Appellants, Michael Bayless and/or his parents. Appellants' primary argument is that it was error to submit the question of Michael's negligence to the jury because of his relative youth and inexperience given that he was only 14 years old at the time of the accident. In support of their claim, Appellants cite Baldwin v. Hosley, 328 S.W.2d 426 (Ky.1959), which discusses the application of the long-overruled principle of contributory negligence [5] in cases where a party is a minor. They also claim that Boyer's allegedly inadequate discharge instructions relieved them of any duty they might have had to seek follow-up medical care. Appellants claim there was no factual basis for a jury instruction on the issue of comparative negligence and such an instruction was therefore impermissible. While it is true that an instruction must not be submitted on an issue that is entirely unsupported by evidence or reasonable inferences therefrom, West Virginia Tractor & Equip. Co. v. Cain, 487 S.W.2d 910, 911 (Ky.1972), Appellants have clearly ignored any and all such evidence in constructing this argument. Instead, Appellants present a litany of reasons that their liability should be excused or minimized. Such an argument, while appropriate for a jury at trial, does not address the fundamental error they have alleged here. There was sufficient evidence in this case to suggest that Appellants bore some responsibility for the injuries they claimed, not the least of which was the 66 day delay between Michael's treatment in the emergency room and his decision to seek follow-up treatment. Therefore the trial court's decision to instruct the jury on the issue of comparative negligence was not error.