Opinion ID: 1729834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the lower court err in refusing to allow the jury to apply the standards of reasonableness in considering the actions of the appellee?

Text: The appellant requested jury instructions to the effect that he would not be liable for the injuries sustained by the appellee if they found that the appellee acted unreasonably in jumping over the wall and that the injuries were the results of this unreasonable action. Instructions D-10 and D-2 were properly refused. Instruction D-3, although inartfully drawn, should have been granted because it embodied the appellant's theory of his defense that Farmer acted unreasonably after the initial battery in running and jumping over the retaining wall. On retrial it would be proper to grant such an instruction if it is tied in sufficiently to the facts in this case. Assignments of error V and VI are without merit. For the numerous reasons outlined above, this cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, BROOM, LEE, and BOWLING, JJ., concur. HAWKINS and BOWLING, JJ., specially concur.