Court Opinion

ID: 9848488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:20:47.041354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:20.457473
License: Public Domain

HATHAWAY, Chief Judge
(dissenting):
The judgment should be reversed and the cause should be remanded for a new trial in view of the erroneous instruction given on contributory negligence.
The majority correctly assumes that the instruction violates the holding of our Supreme Court in Schmidt v. Gibbons, 101 Ariz. 222, 418 P.2d 378 (1966), and notes the plaintiffs’ contention of fundamental error in reliance on Trojanovich v. Marshall, 95 Ariz. 145, 388 P.2d 149 (1963), where the court considered a contributory negligence instruction on its own motion. The majority’s conclusion that the instruction is not “flagrantly” erroneous ignores the evil that the instruction intrudes into the constitutionally guaranteed right that the defense of “ * * * contributory negligence * * * shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.” Arizona Constitution, art. 18, § 5, A.R.S.
The jury’s deliberations were tainted by the constitutionally repugnant instruction. To attain an uncontaminated verdict, a new trial to a properly instructed jury is required. The absence of “flagrant” unconstitutionality is an unfit standard for the cup of justice.