Court Opinion

ID: 9762854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:32:49.960089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:38.066573
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
RUARK,. Judge.
We have concluded that the rulings of the court, especially that made on objection to part of the plaintiff’s opening statement outlining the case she expected to prove, may have, misled or restrained the plaintiff in regard to the scope of proof concerning knowledge of incompetence. Respondent should have opportunity to develop -this if she can, and for such reason the order of reversal is modified and the' case is remanded for retrial. Motion for rehearing is denied and motion to transfer is overruled.
For the. purpose of avoiding possible error on such retrial, we suggest that plaintiff’s Instruction No. 3 was wholly abstract [see Patterson v. Thompson, Mo.App., 277 S.W.2d 314(16)] and is subject to the criticism that it is a comment.
Instruction No. 5, submitting the measure of damages, specifically called attention to the fact that Jeff might be subject to induction in the armed services. Spalding v. Robertson, 357 Mo. 37, 206 S.W.2d 517, 523, held that evidence in regard to induction was competent but disapproved of singling it out in an instruction.
We think we have heretofore said all that is necessary as to the definition of, willful and wanton conduct. Assuming a submissible case is made, either party is entitled to an instruction defining such conduct. If one party gives such instruction but so limits it as to make it susceptible of jury interpretation that it applies only to the conduct of one person, then the other party is entitled to such an instruction which gives a definition not so limited.
STONE, P. J., and McDOWELL, J., concur.