Court Opinion

ID: 9647219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:26:49.202896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:46.329108
License: Public Domain

BILLINGS, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The principal opinion recognizes that Instruction No. 8 “introduces concepts of the plaintiff’s negligence” and that the case was “submitted to the jury on the basis of comparative fault.” Nevertheless, the opinion concludes there was no prejudice to plaintiff.
As Lippard squarely holds, comparative fault simply has no place in a strict liability case. And, contrary to the principal opinion, I cannot be as confident that Instruction No. 8 did not prejudice the outcome of the case — particularly, when it provided the springboard for defendant to argue comparative fault and contributory negligence to the jury.
I would reverse and remand the case for a new trial under instructions applicable to a strict liability case.