 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Morris v. Griffin2/23/2005
ed in Garrett v. Brown, supra, the interrogatories submitted here separately accounted for each element of damage that appellant was requesting. The interrogatory, as modified by the trial court, was a correct statement of the law because it first asks the jury to determine whether there was any negligence that was the proximate cause of her damages; if so, the remaining interrogatories addressed the determination of damages.
Thus, the interrogatories submitted in the instant case addressed each of the elements required to be proven in a negligence case: liability, damages, and proximate cause. These elements of proof were further reflected in AMI 203, governing the burden of proof in a negligence claim, which was also submitted to the jury. It is true that we cannot ascertain whether the jury found that appellee was not negligent or whether he was negligent but his negligence was not the proximate cause of appellant's damages. This is of no moment, however, because for the reasons previously stated, we affirm on either ground.
Finally, the interrogatory proposed by appellant would have posed the danger of allowing the jury to reach the issue of damages merely by finding that appellee caused the collision (which was not at issue), without first finding that he was negligent in such a manner that was the proximate cause of any damages. Given that appellee's conduct in causing the accident was merely evidence of negligence, and was not a presumption of the same, appellant's requested interrogatory would have been an improper statement of the law. Therefore, the trial court properly denied her motion for new trial based on its refusal to submit it.
Affirmed.
Robbins and Roaf, JJ., agree.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|