Court Opinion

ID: 9737087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:15:08.798905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:56.403887
License: Public Domain

DOOLING, J., and DRAPER, J.
J.—  We concur. However, a word should be said as to a point raised by appellant at oral argument but not discussed in the above opinion. Ap*287pellant argued that the instructions erroneously directed the jury to determine the proportionate causal contribution of the parties to plaintiff’s injury, rather than their proportionate negligence. This question has not been determined in California. In other jurisdictions, the rule appears to be that, once causal connection of the negligence of each party with the injury is found, “the apportionment must be made on the basis of comparative fault rather than comparative contribution” (41 Cal.L.Rev. 1, 14-15). Assuming this doctrine to be applicable in California, the instructions here given are consistent with it. The jury was told to view the combined negligence of plaintiff and defendant, and then to determine what portion of it consisted of plaintiff’s own conduct. Thus the instructions are not vulnerable to the criticism made by appellant.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 19, 1960, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 16, 1960.