Court Opinion

ID: 9558192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:04:10.080375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:28.833130
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent. Many of the instructions given were standard, stock instructions. Those which the main opinion picks out as being objectionable do not seem to be objectionable at all, but may have been somewhat repetitious. None of them was obscure, but would appear to be clear and correct. To say they misled the jury is simply a conclusion on our part. There were other instructions that in the aggregate were just as favorable to plaintiff’s case, though numerically there may not have been so many. We have said many times that we must view the instructions as a whole. If six seem to favor one side and four the other, we cannot say that because of numerosity the one more favored by them should prevail by virtue of the numbers. It is like saying one with five witnesses prevails over his opponent who could muster but three.
For us to volunteer in this particular case that the instructions, not obscure or confusing, misled the jury and took the jury’s mind from the real issue, is to attribute to the members of the panel an inability to read the entire instructions, not generally attributable to the average jury, — so far as the courts are concerned, including this one, — that more than once has sung the jury’s praises so far as being ordinary prudent persons having common sense and discernment are concerned.
The main opinion concedes that by all standards the jury’s verdict was proper and completely defensible, — except for some wording taken from the instructions as a whole, and because the main opinion believes there were a few too many instructions that may have been repetitious.