Court Opinion

ID: 9531382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:10:20.965638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:26.051743
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Eehearing
PEE CÜEIAM.
On motion for rehearing, counsel for defendants again question the court’s instructions on contributory negligence.
Instruction No. 27 was given reading:
“You are instructed that under the facts in this case contributory negligence, if any, on the part of the plaintiff, is a complete bar to any recovery by the plaintiff. You are further instructed that contributory negligence, in its legal signification, is ‘such an act or omission on the part of the plaintiff, amounting to a want of ordinary care, as concurring or cooperating with the negligent acts of the defendants, is a proximate cause or occasion of the injury complained of’.”
There is no doubt about the correctness of instruction No. 27. It is true that other instructions contained language that might be construed as a charge that contributory negligence was no bar unless it was the sole proximate cause of the injuries to plaintiff.
The objections to the instructions to the general effect that contributory negligence is no bar unless it was the sole proximate cause of the injury, did not specifically point out that alleged error and under the command of section 93-5101 this court may not reverse the cause on that account.
Accordingly, the petition for rehearing in this cause is denied.