35.15 [1998 Revision] Illustrations(Negligence and Strict Liability Combined(Comparative Fault(Apportionment of Fault Among Defendants

Instruction No 1 35.15 [1998 Revision] IllustrationsCNegligence and Strict Liability CombinedCComparative FaultCApportionment of Fault Among Defendants Vehicles driven by defendant John Host, and defendant, Robert Hitter, had a head-on collision on a two-lane highway. Plaintiff Harry Hurt was a passenger in Host's auto. Plaintiff claims Host failed to keep a careful lookout. Plaintiff claims defendant Hitter was on the wrong side of the highway. Plaintiff claims that Hitter's vehicle had defectively designed brakes that contributed to cause Hitter's vehicle to cross the center line. The vehicle was manufactured by defendant General Car Company. There is evidence that General had prior problems with "pulling" of certain models with the type of brakes on Hitter's vehicle. All defendants claim plaintiff was negligent in failing to warn Host. Plaintiff has received serious personal injuries. All defendants have filed crossclaims against each other seeking apportionment of fault. The date of injury in this illustration was prior to the effective date of ' 537.760, et seq., R.S.Mo. Instruction Number 1 (Same as MAI 2.01) Instruction Number 2 (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 Number 3 (See MAI 2.02 (1980 Revision)) In returning your verdict, 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. 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 Number 5 (See MAI 11.08 (1996 Revision)) The term "negligent" or "negligence" as applied to the driver of a motor vehicle means the failure to use that degree of care that a very careful person would use under the same or similar circumstances. The term "negligent" or "negligence" as applied to a passenger in a motor vehicle means the failure to use that degree of care that an ordinarily careful person would use under the same or similar circumstances. The term "negligent" or "negligence" as applied to an automobile manufacturer means the failure to use that degree of care that an ordinarily careful and prudent person would use under the same or similar circumstances.%g1%g Instruction Number 6 (See MAI 2.04 (1981 Revision)) There are two 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 Number 7 (See MAI 2.05 (1980 New)) Instructions 7 through 13 and general instructions 1 through 6 apply to the claim of plaintiff Harry Hurt for personal injury [based on theories of product defect and negligence] %g2%g. Use Verdict A to return your verdict on this claim. Instruction Number 8 (See MAI Revision) (first option), modified) 25.04 (1978 Revision), 19.01 (1986 In Verdict A, on plaintiff's claim for personal injury based on product defect, your verdict must be for plaintiff against defendant General Car Company if you believe: First, defendant General Car Company manufactured the vehicle in the course of said defendant's business, and Second, the vehicle was then in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use, and Third, the vehicle was used in a manner reasonably anticipated, and Fourth, such defective condition as existed when the vehicle was manufactured directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to plaintiff. Instruction Number 9 (See MAI 25.09 (1990 New), 37.01 (1986 New), 19.01 (1986 Revision) (first option)) In Verdict A, on the claim of plaintiff for personal injury based on negligence, you must assess a percentage of fault to defendant General Car Company whether or not plaintiff was partly at fault if you believe: First, defendant General Car Company manufactured the vehicle, and Second, the vehicle had brakes with a propensity to pull to the left, and Third, defendant failed to use ordinary care to manufacture the vehicle to be reasonably safe, and Fourth, such failure directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to plaintiff. Instruction Number 10 (See MAI 37.01 (1986 New), 17.01 (1980 Revision), 17.13 (1978 Revision), 19.01 (1986 Revision) (first option)) In Verdict A, on the claim of plaintiff for personal injury based on negligence, you must assess a percentage of fault to defendant Hitter whether or not plaintiff was partly at fault if you believe: First, defendant Hitter's automobile was on the wrong side of the road, and Second, defendant Hitter was thereby negligent, and Third, such negligence directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to plaintiff. Instruction Number 11 (See MAI 37.01 (1986 New), 17.01 (1980 Revision), 17.05 (1965 New), 19.01 (1986 Revision) (first option), modified) In Verdict A, on the claim of plaintiff for personal injury based on negligence, you must assess a percentage of fault to defendant Host whether or not plaintiff was partly at fault if you believe: First, defendant Host failed to keep a careful lookout, and Second, de