Court Opinion

ID: 9705574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:12:17.116578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:12.589464
License: Public Domain

*8On Petition for Rehearing.
Faulconer, J.
— Appellee has timely filed its petition for rehearing specifying that this court erred in deciding that the giving by the trial court of defendant-appellee’s Instruction No. 7 and the trial court’s Instruction No. 6 was reversible error. Appellee’s petition for rehearing is upon the ground that this court held the giving of said instructions was error for reasons advanced by the appellant on appeal which were other than those specified by appellant in his objections at the trial of said cause.
In reviewing the briefs we find that the specific objections made by appellant are in the record section of his brief and that appellant has summarized said objections in the argument section thereof. We further note that, although appellee now contends that we adopted the reasons urged in appellant’s argument on appeal, no such alleged change was pointed out by appellee in its reply brief. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that appellee’s petition for rehearing should be denied.
As to Instruction No. 7, a review of appellant’s specific objection thereto amply covered the ground upon which we held the giving of said instruction reversible error. Part of appellant’s objection was, “and said instruction leaves the impression with the Jury that failure to yield the right of way in and of itself is negligence per se.”
Instruction No. 6 was an obvious misstatement of the definition of contributory negligence as it exists in this State and, as we stated in our opinion at page 392 of 210 N. E. 2d, “its use should not be encouraged by using a fiction that the jury might have reached the same result had it been given a proper definition of contributory negligence; and, (2) By not reversing for its use, we would be substituting our judgment for that of the jury . . .” Our opinion on this instruction has not changed.
*9This instruction is also to be condemned as error and as prejudicial for the reason that after the definition the court instructed the jury that “if it [contributory negligence] is shown by the evidence to exist, plaintiff cannot recover.” We cannot presume that the jury didn’t take the erroneous definition given, apply it to the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that contributory negligence existed and, therefore, that plaintiff could not recover.
Appellee’s petition for rehearing is denied.
Prime, C. J., Smith, P. J., Carson, Hunter and Mote, JJ., concur. Bierly and Wickens, JJ., not participating.
Note. — Reported in 210 N. E. 2d 390. Rehearing denied in 212 N. E. 2d 917.