Court Opinion

ID: 9708071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:29:14.712797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:41.876761
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. Rule 8a2(3), Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 1971, provides in part as follows: “. . . that *258consideration of the cause will be limited to errors assigned and discussed.”
The assignment of error relative to exclusion of the opinion of Nolte has not been discussed in the plaintiffs’ brief, either in the statement of facts or in argument, and no authorities are cited.
There was no evidence received to show that the lack of the regulator could or might cause the overheating and that if such was the case the installer should have known it. Both of these factors depended upon the opinion which was excluded. I have carefully read the record and considered the plaintiffs’ contentions. That examination discloses that the excluded opinion testimony was critical to plaintiffs’ case both on the fact of negligence and the question of proximate cause. Because of the failure of the plaintiffs to comply with Rule 8a2(3), I would affirm the judgment.
White, C. J., joins in this dissent.