Court Opinion

ID: 9794523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:07:30.467743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:13.664169
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OF
MIZUHA, J.
In Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal. 2d 652, 320 P.2d 500, the Supreme Court of California, after a careful re-examination of the question of giving of an unavoidable accident instruction, overruled a long line of California decisions and held that:
*346“In the modern negligence action the plaintiff must prove that the injury complained of was proximately caused hy the defendant’s negligence, and the defendant under a general denial may show any circumstance which militates against his negligence or its causal effect. The so-called defense of inevitable accident is nothing more than a denial by the defendant of negligence, or a contention that his negligence, if any, was not the proximate cause of the injury. * * * The Statement in the quoted instruction on ‘unavoidable or inevitable accident’ that these terms ‘simply denote an accident that occurred without having been proximately caused by negligence’ informs the jury that the question of unavoidability or inevitability of an accident arises only where the plaintiff fails to sustain his burden of proving that the defendant’s negligence caused the accident. Since the ordinary instructions on negligence and proximate cause sufficiently show that the plaintiff must sustain his burden of proof on these issues in order to recover, the instruction on unavoidable accident serves no useful purpose.”
This court in commenting on the Butigan decision, on March 24, 1964 in Franco v. Fujimoto, 47 Haw. 408, 441, 390 P.2d 740, 758, stated:
“* * * We are unwilling to go that far but we refer to the case since the instruction involved in it included, in part, the language of Defendant’s Requested Instruction No. 31, and the California high court determined that the instruction was not only unnecessary but also confusing.”
I joined in that portion of the opinion which held that the refusal of an unavoidable accident instruction was not error.
After re-examining this question, I have reached the conclusion that an instruction on unavoidable accident is *347not only unnecessary, but it is also confusing and should never be given in an action based on negligence.
Prior to June 1964, the Supreme Court of Oregon had taken the position that the unavoidable accident instruction should not be given in the ordinary case, that it should be given with caution, and that in the proper case the giving of such an instruction was discretionary with the court. But in Fenton v. Aleshire, 238 Or. 24, 34, 393 P.2d 217, 222, the court, after a careful review of its previous cases, reached the conclusion that “the instruction on unavoidable accident should not be given in any case,” and held that:
“In the modem law of negligence the doctrine of ‘unavoidable accident,’ or, as it is sometimes called, ‘inevitable’ or ‘pure’ accident, is an anomaly. By definition — at least by the definition adopted by this court— it has no place as a separate and independent element in an action based on negligence. * * * As this cotirt has repeatedly declared, an unavoidable accident is nothing more nor less than an accident which occurs Avithout anyone’s fault. In practical effect, when included in the charge of the court to the jury, it is lagniappé to the defendant — not only because it is an added ‘you-should-find-for-the-defendant’ type of instruction, but because it may be misunderstood by the jury as constituting some sort of separate defense. By its very nature it has led this court — and Ave apprehend other courts — to regard the refusal to give the instruction as no ground for reversal, to attempt to delimit the type of cases to which it is applicable, to declare that even in those cases it is discretionary with the trial judge and to admonish caution in the use of the instruction. What is to guide the discretion of the judge in a particular case is by no means clear. * * *”
In November 1964, the Supreme Court of Colorado in *348Lewis v. Buckskin Joe’s, Inc.,- Colo. -, 396 P.2d 933, 941-42, expressly overruled previous opinions on unavoidable accident instructions and stated:
“* * * Instructions on negligence and contributory negligence are sufficient and inclusive of so-called unavoidable accidents. To further instruct on unavoidable accident serves only to twice tell the jury that the plaintiff cannot recover unless he proves negligence.
“Though this court has sanctioned the giving of instructions on unavoidable accident and, on occasion, held it to be reversible error to refuse to so instruct, we now determine that to give such instruction or to recognize unavoidable accident in an action based on negligence, as an independent element, separate and apart from negligence and contributory negligence, is improper.

*********

“We conclude that from and after announcement of this opinion an instruction on unavoidable accident should never be given; and, though recognizing that accidents may be unavoidable, now go on record holding that a> plea of unavoidable accident may not be set up as a separate or independent defense and that to now instruct on unavoidable accident is error. * * *”
“Unavoidable accident” is simply another way of saying that the defendant is not negligent. It is nothing more than a denial of negligence, or, if there was any negligence, a finding that it was not the proximate cause of the injury. The defendant is not entitled to have his defense overemphasized by an instruction on unavoidable accident. When jurors are instructed that “in law, we recognize what is termed an unavoidable accident,” as in this case, “they may get the impression that unavoidability is an issue to be decided and that, if proved, it constitutes a separate ground of nonliability of the defendant. Thus they may *349be misled as to the proper manner of determining liability, that is, solely on the basis of negligence and proximate causation.” Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co., 49 Cal. 2d 652, 320 P.2d 500, 505.
I would reverse on the ground that the unavoidable accident instruction should not have been given.