Court Opinion

ID: 9521225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:00:48.766258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:27.475936
License: Public Domain

YOUNG, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent.
Appellant's tendered instruction number 4 should have been given to the jury as it was applicable to the facts of this case and related to appellant's theory of the manner in which the accident occurred. The fact that it was phrased subjectively did not make it misleading.
Likewise, appellant was entitled to have an instruction on the doctrine of last clear chance. There was sufficient evidence *1198presented by appellant to require giving that rule of law and from which the jury might reasonably infer that appellee's driver had actual knowledge of the decedent's peril.
Parties are entitled to instructions of law which are applicable to the theory of their claim. It is unfair to do otherwise. Buckner v. Wilson, (1967) 141 Ind.App. 272, 227 N.E.2d 462.
I would reverse and order a new trial.