Opinion ID: 1172226
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proposed Instructions 50 and 51 were correctly omitted.

Text: While Manes properly objected to the omission of Proposed Instructions 50 and 51, [4] her challenge to these omissions fails. Proposed Instruction 50 provides that Bradshaw and Hutchinson [sic] are under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the inspection of the premises ... [and] failure to fulfill this duty ... would be negligence. The superior court correctly concluded that the grant of partial summary judgment negated the existence of a duty of inspection. An instruction which declared that the defendants were under such a duty was therefore improper, and the court did not err in rejecting that instruction. For its part, Proposed Instruction 51 contains no actual instructions for the jury. It neither outlines the findings the jury must make to accept Manes's claim nor sets forth any legal directives to the jury. Instead, it merely outlines Manes's argument that One Call voluntarily undertook a duty of inspection. Failure to include a summary of a party's arguments in the jury instructions does not constitute reversible error.