“Contributory negligence, briefly stated, is any negligence alleged against the plaintiff which contributes as a proximate cause of the accident. * * * If it contributes in any degree as the proximate cause of the accident and injuries, that is sufficient to bar recovery on the part of the plaintiff”
How later courts described this case
- “Contributory negligence, briefly stated, is any negligence alleged against the plaintiff which contributes as a proximate cause of the accident. * * * If it contributes in any degree as the proximate cause of the accident and injuries, that is sufficient to bar recovery on the part of the plaintiff”
- “Contributory negligence ... is any negligence alleged against the plaintiff which contributes as a proximate cause of the accident.... If it contributes in any degree as the proximate cause of the accident and injuries, that is sufficient to bar recovery on the part of the plaintiff’
- motion for directed verdict asserts, as a matter of law, that evidence adduced by opposing party is not sufficient to submit issue to jury
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SLOAN, J.,
dissenting.
The result of this case is wrong. The record shows that the trial court first ruled on defendant’s motion to withdraw his request for a directed verdict. The court refused this and that ruling is now reversed. However, the judge then stated that he Avould pass on the motions for a directed verdict and ruled in favor of plaintiff’s motion. It must he remembered that the court’s ruling only decided the issue of defendant’s liability. The plaintiff’s motion to direct the jury that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence was denied and the court submitted that issue to the jury Avith careful instructions. The evidence is convincing that there AAas fault on the part of defendant. Accordingly, in an Employers’ Liability Act case, plaintiff Avas entitled to a verdict in some amount and the directed verdict in his favor on the question of the liability of defendant was properly allowed. So too, was the denial of plaintiff’s motion on contributory negligence.
There was some evidence that plaintiff was negligent. And, had tMs been the usual tort action, plaintiff would not have been entitled to a directed verdict. In that case a finding by the jury of contributory negligence Avould have been a complete bar to plaintiff’s recovery. This is not so, of course, in an Employers’ Liability Act case. The only issue for the *596 jury was to measure plaintiff’s contribution to the accident and to reduce his damages accordingly. The jury did weigh the extent of plaintiff’s negligence and the verdict reflects the jury’s determination of the extent to which that contributed to the accident. The only point at which the trial court must, necessarily, have weighed the evidence, as discussed in the majority opinion, was when he refused to accept the verdict.
It should be our order that the case be remanded to reinstate the jury’s verdict.