Court Opinion

ID: 9721731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:07:10.710004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.309022
License: Public Domain

On Petition For Rehearing.
Cooper, P. J.
Appellee petitions for a rehearing, asserting as the sole ground thereof that we erred in holding that the trial court erroneously gave appellee’s tendered instruction number 17 over the appellant’s objection thereto.
The alleged basis of appellee’s charge of error by this court is that appellant did not make proper objection to said instruction on the ground that it was mandatory and appellant “failed to state specifically what necessary fact was omitted.”
We are at a loss to perceive the validity of appellee’s challenge. In pertinent part, one of appellant’s objections to said instruction was “that the negligence on the part of the plaintiff must be the proximate cause of the injuries and death.” Our opinion was predicated on that very error in the instruction. As we observed in our opinion, the questioned instruction required the jury to find appellant’s decedent to be “without negligence” or “your verdict must be for the defendant.” Thus, the “necessary fact” omitted from the instruction was that of proximate cause.
The instruction was so phrased and worded as to make the primary inquiry of the jury to be not whether any proven alleged negligence of the appellee was the proximate cause of the decedent’s death, but *237whether appellant’s decedent was “without negligence.” The instruction did not inform the jury that any found negligence of the appellant’s decedent which proximately caused or contributed to his injuries and death would defeat appellant’s recovery and require a verdict for appellee. On the contrary, it omitted entirely the fact of proximate cause with reference to any negligence of the decedent found by the jury. It is clear, therefore, that appellant’s objection to instruction number 17 incorporated the charge of an omitted element. The objection, perhaps, was subject to more precise wording, but the substance of the asserted error in the instruction was of sufficient clarity and definiteness to apprise ■ the trial court of the claimed erroneous defect therein.
The mandatory direction of the instruction was so inter-twined with the body thereof that appellant’s objection, of necessity, carried with it the fact of the mandate. Said instruction, as drawn and given, was radically erroneous and severely prejudicial to appellant. As said in Southern Ind. R. Co. v. Moore (1902), 29 Ind. App. 52, at 55, 63 N. E. 863:
“... where there is a radically erroneous instruction, it must appear from the record, beyond doubt, that it did not prejudice the complaining party, or the judgment will be reversed. From the whole record such fact does not appear.”
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Ax, J., Myers, J., Ryan, J., concur.
Note. — Reported in 180 N. E. 2d 547. Rehearing denied 183 N. E. 2d 93.