Opinion ID: 1363963
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Plaintiff's comparative negligence

Text: While concentrating on the question of whether defendants were practicing law, the trial court totally ignored the conduct of one of the parties, specifically, the conduct of plaintiff. Defendant bank offered an instruction which stated, in essence, that the jury was to consider and determine the extent of plaintiff's negligence, as well as that of the decedent and defendants. The trial court refused to give this instruction as offered and modified it to exclude the reference to plaintiff's negligence. The instruction as offered correctly stated the law, was supported by sufficient evidence and was not repetitious of any other instruction. It should, therefore, have been given. An instruction is proper if it is a correct statement of the law and if there is sufficient evidence offered at trial to support it. Jenrett v. Smith, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 315 S.E.2d 583, 592-93 (1983). `Where [in a trial by jury] there is competent evidence tending to support a pertinent theory in the case, it is the duty of the trial court to give an instruction presenting such theory when requested to do so.' McAllister v. Weirton Hospital Co., ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 312 S.E.2d 738, 744 (1983) (citations omitted). This Court held in syllabus point 3 of Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 163 W.Va. 332, 256 S.E.2d 879 (1979): A party is not barred from recovering damages in a tort action so long as his negligence or fault does not equal or exceed the combined negligence or fault of the other parties involved in the accident. (emphasis added) [8] Clearly, under this principle, the question of the negligence of plaintiff in this particular case should have been submitted to the jury. The uncontroverted evidence is that plaintiff was present when defendant Taylor cautioned the decedent to get a lawyer to prepare the codicil. Furthermore, despite hearing this admonishment, plaintiff apparently did not contact a lawyer about the codicil. Thus, in this unusual case, the jury could reasonably find that plaintiff's inaction of not contacting a lawyer and not urging the decedent to contact a lawyer for advice on the preparation and execution of the codicil proximately contributed to the defect in the attestation of the codicil. Under these circumstances, we hold that the jury should have determined whether and to what extent plaintiff, an intended beneficiary under an invalidly executed codicil, was negligent where she was present at the time the codicil was presented to defendants (non-lawyers) for witnessing and was aware that legal advice should be obtained. [T]he foreseeability of risk is a primary consideration in establishing the element of duty in tort cases. Robertson v. LeMaster, ___ W.Va. ___, ___, 301 S.E.2d 563, 568 (1983). The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed[.] Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 344, 162 N.E. 99, 100 (1928) (Cardozo, C.J.).