Court Opinion

ID: 9649053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:41:16.128614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:07.301038
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Judge
(concurring in result).
I agree that the trial court erred in giving Instructions 8 and 10, and properly awarded plaintiff a new trial.
I do not concur in that part of the principal opinion which holds the trial court erred in giving Instructions 7 and 9 on contributory negligence.
The principal opinion recognizes that contributory negligence may consist of “an intentional exposure to a danger of which the plaintiff is aware.” Prosser, The Law of Torts, 3rd Ed., § 64, p. 434 ; 2 Restat., Law of Torts, Second, § 466(a), and 65A C.J.S. Negligence § 119.
However, the principal opinion rejects the idea that contributory negligence may also have consisted in this case of plaintiff’s “failure to discover or appreciate a risk which would be apparent to a reasonable man * * Prosser, supra, p. 434; Restat., supra, § 466(b); 65A C.J.S. Negligence § 120(1).
In Chisenall v. Thompson, 363 Mo. 538, 543, 252 S.W.2d 335, 337-338, this Court said: “In 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 120, page 722, we find the following: ‘The duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury includes the duty to exercise ordinary care to observe and appreciate danger or threatened danger. A person is required to make reasonable use of his faculties of sight, hearing, and intelligence to discover dangers and conditions of danger to which he is or might become exposed, and one injured as a result of his failure to use his faculties to observe and discover a danger which would have been observed and discovered by an ordinarily prudent person is guilty of contributory negligence.’ ”
*223In my opinion, Instructions No. 7 and 9, if accompanied by a definition of “negligence” (MAI 11.02), would be proper to submit this issue of contributory negligence on re-trial. Brewer v. Swift & Company, Mo.Sup., 451 S.W.2d 131. “Every one has the duty to exercise ordinary care for his own safety and should not expect some one else to compensate him for his injuries when he does not do so.” Senseney v. Landay Real Estate Co., 345 Mo. 128, 134, 131 S.W.2d 595, 598.
I concur in result.