Court Opinion

ID: 9760310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:47:40.55276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:10.748283
License: Public Domain

On Hearing En Banc.
PER CURIAM.
In a supplemental brief filed after the transfer of this case to the Court en Banc the defendants attack the soundness of the ruling in the divisional opinion that the failure to negative contributory negligence in Instruction No. 1 was error which dealt with procedural rather than substantive law and hence that the ruling should be applied prospectively. We think that ruling is supported by the cases cited in the opinion. The manner in which issues involving substantive law are submitted to the jury, i. e., the form of an instruction, is a procedural matter. Dell’Aria v. Bonfa, Mo.Sup., 307 S.W.2d 479. The right of the defendants to have the defense of contributory negligence submitted to the jury involves a question of substantive law. That defense was fully submitted in three instructions. The question as to whether plaintiff’s verdict-directing instructions should have been required to negative that defense relates to the manner of the submission of said defense and hence involves a question of procedural law. It therefore follows that the opinion was not erroneous in providing that said ruling be applied prospectively.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion by HOLMAN, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court en Banc.
All concur.