Court Opinion

ID: 9698713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:58:14.458317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:42.937625
License: Public Domain

Grimes, C.J., and Bois, J.,
dissenting: In this automobile accident case, the trial court instructed the jury that if the defendant was found to be negligent and if that negligence caused the plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover “unless you decide . . . that the plaintiff, Mr. Bernier, was in some way contributorily negligent. . . .” This charge was repeated because of the length of the sentence which contained it.
The court also correctly instructed on comparative negligence. The plaintiff argues that the emphasis placed on the above-quoted part of the charge misstated the law and that the charge as a whole was left with two conflicting rules.
The part of the charge which is quoted standing alone is incorrect. The plaintiff is not barred from recovery unless his negligence exceeds that of the defendant. However, the error was harmless because, from the answers to the special question submitted to the jury, it is clear that the jury did not find the defendant to be at fault and it was therefore unnecessary to reach the question of the plaintiff’s fault to which the alleged error related. We therefore dissent.