Opinion ID: 901347
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury on contributory negligence and assumption of the risk.

Text: [¶ 36.] Wedmore argued that Behrens were contributorily negligent and assumed the risk by entering into the Initial Agreement without obtaining legal advice. Wedmore introduced expert testimony that the terms of the Initial Agreement were binding and prevented him from negotiating terms that would better collateralize the note. Therefore, over Behrens' objection, the trial court instructed the jury that contributory negligence and assumption of the risk were defenses to Behrens' malpractice claim. [8] [¶ 37.] Our review of jury instructions is settled. Under our standard of review, we construe jury instructions as a whole to learn if they provided a full and correct statement of the law. If, as a whole, the instructions misled, conflicted, or confused, then reversible error occurred. The party charging that an instruction was given in error has the dual burden of showing that the instruction was erroneous and prejudicial. An erroneous instruction is prejudicial if in all probability it produced some effect upon the verdict and is harmful to the substantial rights of the party assigning it. First Premier Bank v. Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc., 2004 SD 92, ¶40, 686 NW2d 430, 448 (internal citations omitted).