Court Opinion

ID: 9724552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:01:41.536235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:02.466350
License: Public Domain

*27Currie, C. J.
{concurring). I fully concur in the opinion written by Mr. Justice.Wilkie. The argument advanced in the dissenting opinion goes to the issue of whether plaintiffs were justified in failing to underpin their building after receipt of the notice that the excavating would be carried to plaintiffs’ building and would be deeper than its footings. Thus this argument has to do with the issue of negligence, not of causation.
Upon the new trial I would suggest that the question which inquires with respect to plaintiffs’ failure to protect their property be phrased in terms of negligence so that it would read substantially as follows:
“Did the plaintiffs Schmidt negligently fail to take such means as were available to them to protect their property?”
It is clear that the trial court intended this question to be framed in terms of negligence because of inclusion in the verdict of the comparative-negligence question.