Opinion ID: 2164444
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contributory Negligence Instruction

Text: Contributory negligence is normally a question of fact submitted to the jury for consideration under proper instruction. Dockham v Marr, 373 Mich 680, 684; 130 NW2d 924 (1964); Cochran v Pinto, 333 Mich 91, 99; 52 NW2d 611 (1952); White v Herpolsheimer Co, 327 Mich 462, 470; 42 NW2d 240 (1950); Neal v Cities Service Oil Co, 306 Mich 605, 609; 11 NW2d 259 (1943); Reedy v Goodin, 285 Mich 614, 620; 281 NW 377 (1938). Only where the record is so clear or undisputed that reasonable minds could not conceivably draw contrary conclusions of fact can the court remove the question from the jury by finding either contributory negligence or the absence of contributory negligence as a matter of law: This Court has in recent years frequently reiterated that it must be a very clear case to justify a trial judge in taking a negligence action from the jury on grounds of contributory negligence. Churukian v LaGest, 357 Mich 173, 179; 97 NW2d 832 (1959). See also Koehler v Detroit Edison Co, 383 Mich 224; 174 NW2d 827 (1970); Hall v Wood, 26 Mich App 135; 181 NW2d 924 (1970); Desmarais v Myefski, 20 Mich App 436; 174 NW2d 174 (1969). Ordinarily, the court's instruction on contributory negligence defines the legal duty required of the plaintiff and the legal standard to be used in evaluating that duty with regard to the facts of the case: If plaintiff was in the exercise of ordinary care under all of the circumstances, he was not guilty of contributory negligence; and what is ordinary care is usually a question of fact. It is the care which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. Reedy, supra, 620. The trial court in the instant case appropriately gave the following instruction on contributory negligence pursuant to the Michigan Standard Jury Instructions: [1] Now, when I use the terms `negligence' or `contributory negligence' with respect to the plaintiff's conduct, I mean the plaintiff's failure to use ordinary care for her own safety which proximately contributed to her injuries. By failure to use ordinary care for her own safety I mean the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would do or the doing of something which a reasonably careful person would not do under the circumstances which you find existed in this case. And again it is for you to decide what a reasonably careful person would do or would not do for her own safety under the circumstances.