Court Opinion

ID: 9721256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:53:42.169218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:24.446426
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GUILD dissenting: While I agree with the majority opinion in its discussion of the repudiation of the doctrine of imputed negligence in the case of a passenger not engaged in a joint enterprise or mutual benefit trip, I disagree with the result obtained in the instant case. The interrogatory given relative to the contributory negligence of Frankie Scott, the driver, was given at the request of the defendant. The majority holds that this interrogatory was improper without further instruction. That may well be, but this was the defendant’s requested interrogatory, if he chose not to give any “further instruction” that should certainly not be held against the plaintiff. Secondly, the majority hold that an instruction should have been given to the effect that Ida Mae Scott, the passenger, would be chargeable with her own negligence and not that of her driver. This was plaintiff’s instruction. It was not given. Nonetheless, the jury brought in a verdict for her in the sum of $3,500. Certainly defendant cannot now claim that this instruction should have been given. The Motion of the plaintiff for judgment on the verdict of the jury should have been given. I would reverse the lower Court and direct the Court to enter judgment for the plaintiff.