Court Opinion

ID: 9552349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:09:17.060604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:11.535387
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, J.,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
The Honorable TOM CORNISH was appointed the special judge to fill the vacancy created by the death of WILLIAMS, J.
SIMMS, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority on the accuracy of Instruction No. 5. Third party negligence does not constitute an affirmative defense; it merely controverts one of plaintiff’s essential allegations.
I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s treatment of other instructions. Standing alone, Instruction No. 5 is correct, but when coupled with Instruction No. 8, the instructions convey the misleading impression that the jury must make a choice as to whether defendant or a third party was the cause of the accident. As we stated in Dismuke v. Miller, 344 P.2d 1049 (Okl.1959) regarding the issue of third party negligence:
“... it would be much better practice to clarify it by an express instruction on the law concerning negligence and causal connection, and thereby expressly inform the jury that even though the third party was negligent ... the defendants might also be liable if there was concurring negligence on their part.” 344 P.2d at 1052.
When instructions charge the jury to impute negligence inappropriately and suggest that a defendant must be solely negligent to be liable, as they do in the instant case, it is reasonably certain the jury will be misled.
*262Furthermore, I believe the trial court’s Instruction No. 2 advising the jury that plaintiff had “no case” in products liability was prejudicial, especially considering the often intersecting concepts of manufacturers’ products liability and negligence. The statement that plaintiff has “no case” in products liability carries with it the suggestion that other aspects of plaintiff’s case are also doomed. Such a statement alone, without an accompanying explanation of the continued vitality of plaintiff’s case in negligence, singles out and emphasizes a fact to the exclusion of others. The admonition that a certain issue is “withdrawn from consideration” by the jury belongs after a demurrer to the evidence, not as a prelude to numerous jury instructions. In jury instructions emphasis should be placed on the issues presented by the evidence, not on questions of law already decided by the court. Page v. Hardy, 334 P.2d 782 (Okl.1958).