 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cutler v. Jim Gilman Excavating11/18/2003
y.
These instructions further focused the jury on Cutler's pre-treatment conduct; in fact, the last sentence in Instruction 18 states that Cutler's negligence could prevent his ability to recover if such negligence caused, or was a substantial factor in causing, his injuries. As we noted above, such instructions relating to Cutler's pre-treatment conduct are inappropriate in the instant situation. See Harding, 16. Therefore, the District Court also abused its discretion when it tendered Instructions 18 and 19 to the jury.
The result reached here does not prevent the Respondents from arguing that the injuries of which Cutler complains were sustained in his accident as opposed to afterwards and at their hands. The jury may consider a properly framed causation argument and jury instructions to this effect. It is the coupling of the cause of Cutler's injuries to the issue of his comparative fault that is impermissible.
As a final matter, we note that Cutler's opening brief presented nine other issues relating to the District Court proceedings in this case. Cutler then withdrew two of these issues in his reply brief, leaving seven additional issues on appeal before this Court. We decline to address these seven issues. Because this case has been remanded for a new trial, three of Cutler's ancillary issues are moot. His four remaining issues were presented without proper support. Rule 23(a)(4), M.R.App.P., requires that an appellant provide an argument that contains "the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and pages of the record relied on." We have repeatedly held that "we will not consider unsupported issues or arguments." In re Custody of Krause, 2001 MT 37, 32, 304 Mont. 202, 32, 19 P.3d 811, 32. It is "not this Court's obligation to locate authorities or formulate arguments for a party in support of positions taken on appeal." In re B. P., 2001 MT 219, 41, 306 Mont. 430, 41, 35 P.3d 291, 41. Cutler failed to bolster his four remaining issues with argument and supporting authority relevant to his claims. As such, we decline to address the four remaining issues contained in Cutler's opening brief.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
PATRICIA COTTER
We Concur:
W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
JAMES C. NELSON
JIM REGNIER
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|