Court Opinion

ID: 9791544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:13:27.93129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:36.837661
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ERICKSON
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The majority, relying on Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. State Farm Ins. Co., 268 Wisc. 6, 66 N.W.2d 697 (1954), and DeGroot v. Van Akkeren, 225 Wisc. 105, 273 N.W. 725 (1937), had dictated that Colorado juries should be kept in the dark as to what the result of their *163comparative negligence verdict will be. In this case, an instruction regarding the results which would flow from a jury’s verdict establishing the comparative negligence of the parties is foreclosed, and the companion case of Simpson v. Anderson, 186 Colo. 163, 526 P.2d 298, prohibits counsel from arguing to the jury the result which will follow their finding of a particular percentage of negligence attributable to any party. In the Avery and Simpson cases, the court has elected to follow Wisconsin practice in comparative negligence cases. In my view, a jury should always be advised as to what the law is which must be applied to the facts to obtain a fair and just verdict. The court’s instructions should provide the law of the case, and counsel should be permitted to argue the effect of the instructions on the facts which are before the jury.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE has permitted me to say that he joins me in this dissent.