35.03 [1998 Revision] Illustrations(Head(On Collision(Suit by Passenger Against Other Driver(Third(Party Claim Against Driver of Passenger's Vehicle for Apportionment of Fault

Instruction No 1 35.03 [1998 Revision] IllustrationsCHeadBOn CollisionCSuit by Passenger Against Other DriverCThirdBParty Claim Against Driver of Passenger's Vehicle for Apportionment of Fault A Buick driven by Prudence Driver and occupied by plaintiff-passenger, Easy Ryder, was struck head-on in its proper lane of travel by a Ford driven by defendant, Harold Careless, which crossed into the wrong lane. Ryder was injured and filed suit against Careless alone. Careless then filed a third-party claim against Driver seeking apportionment of fault for Ryder's damages. Instruction No. 1 Instruction No. 2 (Same as MAI 2.01) (See MAI 2.03 (1980 New)) As you remember, the court gave you a general instruction before the presentation of any evidence in this case. The court will not repeat that instruction at this time. However, that instruction and the additional instructions, to be given to you now, constitute the law of this case and each such instruction is equally binding upon you. You should consider each instruction in light of and in harmony with the other instructions, and you should apply the instructions as a whole to the evidence. The order in which the instructions are given is no indication of their relative importance. All of the instructions are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room. Instruction No. 3 (See MAI 11.03 (1996 Revision)) The term "negligent" or "negligence" as used in these instructions means the failure to use the highest degree of care. The phrase "highest degree of care" means that degree of care that a very careful person would use under the same or similar circumstances. Instruction No. 4 (See MAI 3.01 (1998 Revision)) In these instructions, you are told that your verdict depends on whether or not you believe certain propositions of fact submitted to you. The burden is upon the party who relies upon any such proposition to cause you to believe that such proposition is more likely to be true than not true. In determining whether or not you believe any proposition, you must consider only the evidence and the reasonable inferences derived from the evidence. If the evidence in the case does not cause you to believe a particular proposition submitted, then you cannot return a verdict requiring belief of that proposition. Instruction No. 5 (See MAI 2.02 (1980 Revision)) In returning your verdicts you will form beliefs as to the facts. The court does not mean to assume as true any fact referred to in these instructions but leaves it to you to determine what the facts are. Instruction No. 6 (See MAI 2.04 (1981 Revision)) There are three claims submitted to you and each of them contains a separate verdict form. The verdict forms included in these instructions contain directions for completion and will allow you to return the permissible verdicts in this case. Nine or more of you must agree in order to return any verdict. A verdict must be signed by each juror who agrees to it. ****** Instruction No. 7 (See MAI 2.05 (1980 New)) Instructions 7 through 9 and general instructions 1 through 6 apply to the claim of plaintiff Ryder for personal injuries against defendant Careless. Use Verdict A to return your verdict on this claim. Instruction No. 8 (See MAI Revision), 19.01 (1986 Revision)) 17.01 (1980 Revision), 17.13 (1978 Your verdict must be for plaintiff Ryder if you believe: First, defendant Careless' automobile was on the wrong side of the road, and Second, defendant Careless was thereby negligent, and Third, such negligence directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to plaintiff. Instruction No. 9 (See MAI 4.01 (1980 Revision)) If you find in favor of plaintiff Ryder, then you must award plaintiff such sum as you believe will fairly and justly compensate plaintiff for any damages you believe he sustained and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future that the collision directly caused or directly contributed to cause. VERDICT A (See MAI 36.01 (1980 Revision)) Note: Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict. On the claim of plaintiff Ryder for personal injuries against defendant Careless, we, the undersigned jurors, find in favor of: (Plaintiff Ryder) Careless) Note: Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is in favor of plaintiff Ryder. or (Defendant We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Ryder at $ (stating the amount ). Note: All jurors who agree to the above findings must sign below. ****** Instruction No. 10 (See MAI 2.05 (1980 New)) Instructions 10 and 11 and general instructions 1 through 6 apply to the claim of defendant Careless against third-party defendant Driver seeking an apportionment of fault. Use Verdict B to return your verdict on the claim. Instruction No. 11 (See MAI 17.02 (1980 Revision), Revision), 17.05 (1965 New), 19.01 (1986 Revision)) Your verdict must be for defendant Careless if you believe: First, either: Second, third-party defendant Driver, in any one or more of the respects submitted in Paragraph First, was thereby negligent, and Third, such negligence directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to plaintiff. VERDICT B (See MAI 36.16 (1979 New)) Note: Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict. On the claim of defendant Careless against third-party defendant Driver seeking an apportionment of fault, we, the undersigned jurors, find in favor of: (Defendant Careless) or (ThirdBParty Defendant Driver) 17.04 (1978 Note: All jurors who agree with the above findings must sign below. ****** Instruction No. 12 (See MAI 2.05 (1980 New)) Instructions 12 and 13 and general instructions 1 through 6 apply to the claim for assessment of the proportions of fault. Use Verdict C to return your verdict on this claim. Instruction No. 13 (See MAI 4.13 (1979 New)) If Verdict A is in favor of plaintiff Ryder and against defendant Careless and if Verdict B is in favor of defendant Careless and against third-party defendant Driver, you must assess the proportion of the fault which each party listed in Verdict C has for plaintiff's damages. VERDICT C (See MAI 36.15 (1979 New)) Note: Complete this form if fault is to be apportioned. On the claim of defendant Careless for assessment of the proportions of fault for plaintiff's damage assessed in Verdict A, we, the undersigned jurors, find: Note: Complete by writing in the percentage of the relative fault for each party you believe to be at fault. You may not write in "zero"