 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cutler v. Jim Gilman Excavating11/18/2003
Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the District Court on September 3, 1999.
Cutler filed his tort claims in Montana State District Court on June 3, 1998. Cutler proceeded to trial against the Respondents on November 13, 2001. The jury returned a verdict in favor the Respondents on November 16, 2001. Cutler filed a timely appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court has broad discretion to decide whether to give or refuse a party's proposed jury instruction. Therefore, we review jury instructions in a civil case for an abuse of discretion. Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 1999 MT 288, 44, 297 Mont. 33, 44, 991 P.2d 915, 44. In reviewing whether a particular jury instruction was properly given or refused, this Court must consider the instruction in its entirety, as well as in connection with the other instructions given and with the evidence introduced at trial. Federated, 44.
DISCUSSION
Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it instructed the jury on comparative negligence?
In this case, the issue before the jury was whether the Respondents were negligent in their treatment of Cutler on July 2, 1994. Specifically, Cutler asserted that the Respondents treated him in a manner that aggravated his injuries. The Respondents countered that because Cutler was driving while under the influence of alcohol, his injuries were the result of his own negligence.
On appeal, Cutler maintains that his intoxication was irrelevant to the question of whether the Respondents were negligent in their treatment of him at the accident scene. Therefore, Cutler contends that the District Court improperly instructed the jury on comparative negligence at trial.
The following comparative negligence instructions were given to the jury:
No. 17: The Defendants claim that Plaintiff Cutler's injuries resulted from his own negligence. As to this defense, the Defendants have the burden of proving the following:
1. That Plaintiff Cutler was negligent; and
2. That his negligence was a cause of his injuries.
No. 39: Negligence on the part of Plaintiff Cutler does not bar his recovery unless his negligence was greater than the combined negligence of the Defendants. However, the total amount of damages that Plaintiff Cutler would otherwise be entitled to recover will be reduced by the court in proportion to the amount of negligence you attribute to him.
This Court addressed a nearly identical situation in Harding v. Deiss, 2000 MT 169, 300 Mont. 312, 3 P.3d 1286. In Harding, Candice Shuck went horseback riding near Anaconda. Prior to her riding session, Candice was aware that she was allergic to horses, and that she had asthma and a long history of breathing difficulties. Harding, 3. During the ride, Candice experienced breathing problems and eventually collapsed. She was transported to the hospital in Anaconda and placed under the care of Dr. Zachory Deiss. The following day Candice was transported to a hospital in Butte, Montana and placed under the care of Dr. Glenn Sublette. She died several days later. Harding, 3.
Candice's mother brought a wrongful death and survivor action against Dr. Deiss and Dr. Sublette, in which she alleged that the Doctors were negligent in their treatment of Candice. The Doctors argued that because Candice's asthma attack caused her to suffer a severe brain injury, it was her own negligence (in choosing to go horseback riding) that caused her death. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Doctors. Harding, 4, 6. On appeal, Candice's mother argued that the issue of whether
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|