Court Opinion

ID: 9774582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:25:19.344535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:10.862646
License: Public Domain

JohN A. FoglemaN, Justice, concurring, I concur in the result and agree that the case should not be reversed for failure to give appellant’s requested Instruction No. 1, even though I think it is a correct declaration of law and applicable. But I believe that it affirmatively appears that no prejudice resulted because it was adequately covered by AMI 301, 303, 305 and 901. While there was no evidence on which negligence of Gr. O. Booth could be imputed to Marguerite M. Booth, appellant contended that the negligence of Gr. C. Booth was' the sole proximate cause of her injuries. By these instructions the jury was told that ordinary care was the care a reasonably careful person would use under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence; that it was the duty of all persons involved to use ordinary care for their own safety and the safety of others; that the lookout required of a driver of a motor vehicle was that which a reasonably careful driver would keep wider circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence; that it was the duty of a driver of a motor vehicle to drive at a speed no greater than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for any actual or potential hazards-; and that a failure to meet the standards of conduct required by the latter two rules was negligence.