Opinion ID: 880014
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: argument of the effect of comparative negligence

Text: Smith on appeal argues that the District Court erred in refusing to permit arguments by counsel to the jury as to the legal effect of comparative negligence, when the negligence of the plaintiff exceeds that of the defendant. Section 27-1-702, MCA. The District Court did rule and admonish counsel that the court did not want any argument to the jury relating to the effect of varying percentages of fault that the jury may find as between the plaintiff and the defendant. Defendant did object to this ruling, but the objection was more pro forma than substantive. No instructions on comparative negligence in this case were offered by the plaintiff or the defendant, or given by the court. Whether we accept Rorvik's version  that Smith jumped into her path, or Smith's version  that he was struck as he came from behind the loader into the highway area  it is obvious that comparative negligence was an issue, and that on remand, instructions on comparative negligence should be given to the jury. Although no instructions were given to the jury on comparative negligence in this case, special verdict forms were submitted which indicated, by the composition of the questions, that if the jury found negligence on the part of Rorvik which contributed to plaintiff's injuries, it must thereafter determine whether Smith was contributorily negligent, and then make a comparison of their negligence. However, the jury in this case determined that although Rorvik was negligent, her negligence was not a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by Smith. It is difficult to understand under the instructions given by the court how Rorvik could have been negligent and yet that negligence should not be a proximate cause of the injuries sustained by Smith. It is quite evident that the jury was confused by the concept of proximate cause because it sent four questions on that subject out to the District Court during the time the jury was deliberating on the case. On retrial, the District Court should instruct the jury on comparative negligence in order that the jury may understand the effect of the related questions in the special verdict, if the jury should come to that. The District Court may not restrict argument of counsel as to the effect of findings under comparative negligence. Under § 25-7-301(6), MCA, counsel in arguing the case to the jury, may argue and comment upon the law of the case as given in the instructions of the court, as well as the evidence of the case. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for new trial. WEBER and McDONOUGH, JJ., concur.