Court Opinion

ID: 9530469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:00:06.245668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:07.397417
License: Public Domain

Robb, J.
(dissenting): I am in agreement with the foregoing dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Wertz but wish to add that in my opinion the trial court misled the jury by using the specific words “proximate cause” in its special question No. 4 while in special question No. 5 it omitted the word “proximate” and used the words “caused or contributed,” and further, that the jury’s answer to question No. 4 in regard to the order and arrangement of the three negligences therein spelled out, which the facts of the case showed occurred at an intersection of city streets, convicted the defendant of gross and wanton negligence to which contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff as a matter of law would be no defense.