Court Opinion

ID: 9734375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:33:13.26918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:48.316208
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Justice
(dissenting).
I would reverse. Without further explanation the last sentence of the trial court’s instruction on proximate cause was in error. The practical effect of this sentence was to inform the jury the defendant must have foreseen this particular act and injury to find the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause. The quote in the majority opinion from the federal district court *628puts the foreseeability issue in its proper perspective when it said “... this does not mean, of course, that the precise events which occurred could, themselves have been foreseen as they actually occurred; only that the events were within the scope of the foreseeable risk.” By approving the instruction on proximate cause given by the trial court, we are severely limiting future plaintiffs verdicts regardless of merit.