Court Opinion

ID: 9779764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 00:42:59.561582+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:39.852743
License: Public Domain

CRONE, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully coneur as to issues I, II, and III of the majority's opinion. With respect to issue IV, I agree with the majority that the trial court did not err in giving Instruction No. 26.
*294I must respectfully disagree, however, with the majority's conclusion that the trial court committed reversible error in giving Instruction No. 22. Unlike the erroneous instruction at issue in Wal-Mart, Instruction No. 22 does not attempt to define (either implicitly or explicitly) the relevant standard of care, but rather sets forth the allegations of megligence contained in Rosales's complaint. The jury was properly instructed on the relevant standard of care, and it was properly left for the jury to determine whether any of the instances of the School's alleged conduct constituted a failure to comply with the standard of care, ie., negligence. I would hold that the trial court did not err in giving Instruction No. 22 and affirm the judgment in favor of Rosales. To hold otherwise would be to question the efficacy of ever using former Indiana Pattern Jury Instruction No. 9.03 (or its new equivalent, Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 507).