explaining that “the driver traveling on a through street, as against an emergency vehicle, has a right to cross the intersection unless, by the reasonable exercise of the senses of sight and hearing, he or she should have noticed or heard warning to the contrary”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “the driver traveling on a through street, as against an emergency vehicle, has a right to cross the intersection unless, by the reasonable exercise of the senses of sight and hearing, he or she should have noticed or heard warning to the contrary”
- holding that “‘[t]he doctrine of pure comparative negligence does not allow one at fault to recover for one’s own fault, because damages are reduced in proportion to the contribution of that person’s negligence, whatever that portion is.’” (Citation omitted.
- expressly replacing the doctrine of contributory negligence with the doctrine of comparative negligence
- abolishing common-law contributory negligence as a total bar to recovery and adopting pure comparative negligence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Kavanagh, J.
I concur in the opinion but not in the matter contained in the appendix.
Appendix
Until such time as this Court promulgates Standard Jury Instructions, the following suggested alternative instructions, or any other appropriate instructions, may be used in any negligence case where the negligence of the plaintiff is at issue. The suggested alternative instructions are intended for use in those situations where one plaintiff, one defendant and one claim are involved. *680 Appropriate modifications would be necessary in more complicated fact situations (e.g., multiple tortfeasors, counterclaims or cross-claims).
Hereafter, a special verdict shall be used in any case where the negligence of the plaintiff is at issue. Suggested alternative special verdict forms for use in cases involving one plaintiff, one defendant and one claim are set forth below. Again, modifications would be necessary in more complicated situations.
Additional guidelines for jury instructions and special verdict forms may be found in the case law, statutes, court rules and instructions of those states which have already adopted pure comparative negligence (Alaska, California, Florida, Mississippi, New York, Rhode Island and Washington).
Alternative Suggested Jury Instructions
(The following instructions should be preceded by the usual legal definitions of such terms as negligence and proximate cause.)
1. If you find that the defendant was not negligent or that the defendant’s negligence was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, you will find for the defendant.
2. If you find that defendant was negligent and that defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, then you shall determine the total amount of plaintiff’s damages.
3. You must then determine whether plaintiff was also negligent and whether plaintiff’s negligence was a proximate cause of his/her injury. If you find that plaintiff was not negligent or if plaintiff’s negligence was not a proximate cause of his/her injury, then you will render a verdict for plaintiff in the full amount of his/her damages.
*681 4. If you find that each party was negligent and that the negligence of each party was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries or damages, then you must determine the degree of such negligence, expressed as a percentage, attributable to the plaintiff. Negligence on the part of the plaintiff does not bar . recovery by the plaintiff against the defendant. However, the percentage of negligence attributable to the plaintiff will be used by the court to reduce the amount of damages which you find to have been sustained by the plaintiff.
[Alternative instruction No. 4 for use with Alternative Suggested Special Verdict Form No. II:
4. If you find that each party was negligent and that the negligence of each party was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries or damages, then you must determine the degree of such negligence, expressed as a percentage, attributable to the defendant. Negligence on the part of the plaintiff does not bar recovery by the plaintiff against the defendant. However, only the percentage of negligence attributable to the defendant will be used by the court to compute the amount of damages which will be awarded to the plaintiff.]
5. The court will furnish you a Special Verdict Form to assist you in your duties. Your answers to the questions in the Special Verdict Form will provide the basis by which this case will be resolved.
Alternative Suggested Special Verdict Form No. I
"We, the jury, make the following answers to the questions submitted by the court:
"Question No. 1: Was the defendant negligent?
"Answer:_(Yes or No)
"(If your answer is 'No,’ do not answer any further question.)
*682 "Question No. 2: Was the defendant’s negligence a proximate cause of injury or damage to the plaintiff?
"Answer:_(Yes or No)
"(If your answer is 'No,’ do not answer any further question.)
"Question No. 3: What is the total amount of the plaintiffs damages?
"Answer: $--
"Question No. 4: Was the plaintiff negligent?
"Answer:_(Yes or No)
"(If your answer is 'No,’ do not answer any further question.)
"Question No. 5: Was the plaintiffs negligence a proximate cause of the injury or damage to the plaintiff?
"Answer:_(Yes or No)
"(If your answer is 'No,’ do not answer any further question.)
"Question No. 6: Using 100% as the total combined negligence of the parties which * * * [proximately caused] the injury or damage to the plaintiff, what percentage of such negligence is attributable to the plaintiff?
"Answer:_%.
"_Foreman.” Wash PJI 45.10.01.
Alternative Suggested Special Verdict Form No. II
"We, the jury, make the following answers to the questions submitted by the court.
"Question No. 1: If you find that the defendant was negligent and that his/her negligence was a proximate cause of injury or damage to the plaintiff, what is the total amount of plaintiff’s damages?
"Answer: $__
"Question No. 2: If you find that the plaintiff was also negligent and that his/her negligence was a proximate cause of his/her injury or damage, *683 what percentage of the total combined negligence of the plaintiff and defendant is attributable to the defendant?
"Answer:_%.
"_, Foreman.”