Opinion ID: 1734780
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The verdict of the jury is contrary to the physical facts and the evidence presented in the case.

Text: III. In considering all of the evidence presented in this action in the light and with all reasonable inferences favorable to Parker, the evidence and the inferences are still so strongly and overwhelming in favor of William C. Barrett that reasonable men, unaffected by bias, passion and prejudice could only arrive at a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, William C. Barrett. IV. The plaintiff offered jury instruction P-13. The court modified the instruction and gave the modified instruction as jury instruction No. 9-A. The refusal of the court to grant plaintiff's instruction, as offered to the effect that the jury could consider stock loose in deciding the negligence of defendant, was erroneous. V. The court erred in granting jury instruction 6 and jury instruction 9 (originally D-5 and D-6, respectively). The granting of both of these instructions over-emphasized and duplicated the language relative to the owner's liability. VI. The restriction by the court on defendant's motion in limine limiting plaintiff's proof to instances of cows in the road to a period of one year prior to the accident, was erroneous.