Court Opinion

ID: 9566987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:46:14.738512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:46:11.537169
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:
(dissenting).
Further study of this case on motion for rehearing has convinced me that the court’s instructions when read and eon*477sidered together, correctly presented the applicable law to the jury.
In at least three instructions the court made it clear that before contributory negligence would bar recovery it must have been the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.
In this respect the case is controlled by that of Hightower v. Alley, 132 Mont. 349, 318 Pac. (2d) 243.
I think therefore that the opinion heretofore promulgated should be changed accordingly or the petition for rehearing granted.