Court Opinion

ID: 9589806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:48:56.547613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:26.721477
License: Public Domain

Littlejohn, Justice
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent and would grant a new trial to the defendant because of the erroneous charge of the law. The majority opinion recognizes the error, but excuses it. The trial judge recognized the error, too.
*339After defining “unavoidable accident,” the trial judge told the jury:
“Now, the burden to prove an unavoidable accident would be on the Defendant.”
At the end of the charge, the judge invited counsel to assert
“Any exceptions to the charge as made?” Counsel for the defendant objected and gave the judge an opportunity to correct the mistake. The following transpired:
“MR. VAUGHN: Further, your Honor, in charging on unavoidable accident you said we had the burden of proof. You remember we originally pleaded this as an affirmative defense and on motion of the other party we put that in our general denial, so I don’t think we have the burden of proof on unavoidable accident. “COURT: I don’t think you have either. However, I’m not going to open that can of worms, either sole negligence or unavoidable accident. I’m going to leave it where it is. You can use that as grounds for appeal. Anything further?”
The error should have been corrected before the jury began its deliberations. The error was prejudicial.
I also disagree with that part of the majority opinion which holds that the court “erred by instructing initially on unavoidable accident.” In my view, it is almost never improper to charge the law of unavoidable accident in a negligence case. Negligence is the law of the avoidable accident. In effect, one alleging negligence says to the court, “The happening could have been avoided by the use of ordinary care.” Accordingly, the law of avoidable accident is always necessary in a negligence case. In order to further explain the law, it would be almost never improper to charge the law of unavoidable accident. The facts here warranted the charge.
I would remand for a new trial.