Court Opinion

ID: 9545075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:05:34.244204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:03.256364
License: Public Domain

PARKER, Chief Justice, and HARNS-BERGER, Justice
(dissenting).
While we agree with what has been said concerning all matters except those arising from Instruction 13, we think that this instruction to the jury, unrelated to a particular witness and to definite testimony, was clearly erroneous. The principal opinion holds that in order for appellant to show himself prejudiced by such erroneous instruction he must point out some person or persons mentioned in the evidence, other than the medical doctor, not called and who would qualify as having special or peculiar knowledge, not merely corroborative, concerning facts essential to plaintiff’s case. Although it is certainly true that the instruction should have so pointed out the person or persons concerned, we cannot hold that such was appellant’s burden in order to prove prejudice; rather we would hold that where the jury is left to speculate as to what witness or witnesses could have been referred to by the court there is such a likelihood of injury that the giving of the erroneous instruction was prejudicial and ground for reversal.
We would reverse and remand for a new trial.