 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Redmond v. Socha9/29/2004
as injured;
Third, that the negligence of the Defendant was a proximate cause of the injury to the Plaintiff.
If you find from you consideration of all of the evidence that any of these propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the Defendant as to the Plaintiff's complaint. On the other hand, if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that all of these propositions have been proved, then you must consider Defendant's claim that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
As to that claim, Defendant has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:
A: That the Plaintiff acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the Defendant as stated to you in these instructions, and that in so acting or failing to act, the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent;
B. That Plaintiff's contributory negligence was a proximate cause of his injury .
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the Plaintiff has proved all the propositions required of the Plaintiff and that Defendant has not proved both of the propositions required of the Defendant, then your verdict should be for the Plaintiff and you will not reduce the Plaintiff's damages.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the Plaintiff has proved all the propositions required of the Plaintiff and that Defendant has proved both of the propositions required of the Defendant, and if you find that the Plaintiff's contributory negligence was greater than 50% of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage for which recovery is sought, then your verdict should be for the Defendant.
Finally, if you find from your consideration of all the evidence, that the Plaintiff has proved all the propositions required of the Plaintiff and that Defendant has proved both of the propositions required of the Defendant, and if you find that the Plaintiff's contributory negligence was 50% or less of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage for which recovery is sought, then your verdict should be for the Plaintiff and you will reduce the Plaintiff's damages in the manner stated to you in these instructions.
In order for the Defendant to recover on her counterclaim, she has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:
First, that the Plaintiff acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the Defendant as stated to you in these instructions, and in so acting or failing to act, the Plaintiff was negligent;
Second, that the Defendant's property was damaged;
If you find from your consideration of all of the evidence that each of these propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for the Plaintiff as to the Defendant's counterclaim. On the other hand, if you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions have been proved, then you must consider the Plaintiff's claim that Defendant was contributorily negligent.
As to that claim, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:
A. That the Defendant acted or failed to act in one of the ways claimed by the Plaintiff as stated to you in these instructions and that in so acting, or failing to act, the Defendant was contributorily negligent;
B. That the Defendant's contributory negligence was a proximate cause of the damage to his property.
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that the Defendant has proved all the propositions required of the Defendant and that the Plaintiff has not proved both of the propositions requir
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Illinois Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|