35.17 [1998 Revision] Illustrations(No Comparative Fault(Rear End Collision(Personal Injury and Loss of Consortium

Instruction No 1 35.17 [1998 Revision] IllustrationsCNo Comparative FaultCRear End CollisionCPersonal Injury and Loss of Consortium A vehicle driven by plaintiff John Hurt was struck from the rear on a city street by a vehicle driven by defendant Robert Hitter. Plaintiff John Hurt received serious personal injuries. Plaintiff Mary Hurt has a consortium claim only and was not in the car. There is no submissible issue of fault on the part of plaintiff. 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 11.02 II (1996 Revision)) The term "negligent" or "negligence" as used in these instructions means the failure to use that degree of care that a very careful person would use under the same or similar circumstances. Instruction Number 6 (See MAI 2.04 (1981 Revision)) The verdict form included in these instructions contains directions for completion and will allow you to return the permissible verdict 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 17.01 (1980 Revision) and 17.16 (1973 Revision)) Your verdict must be for plaintiff John Hurt if you believe: First, defendant's automobile came into collision with the rear of plaintiff's vehicle, and Second, defendant Hitter was thereby negligent, and Third, as a direct result of such negligence plaintiff John Hurt sustained damage. Instruction Number 8 (MAI 31.04 (1991 Revision)) If you find in favor of plaintiff John Hurt on his claim for personal injuries and if you believe that plaintiff Mary Hurt sustained damage as a direct result of injury to her husband John Hurt, then in your verdict you must find that plaintiff Mary Hurt did sustain such damage. Instruction Number 9 (See MAI 33.03, Modified (1995 Revision)) Unless you believe plaintiff Mary Hurt sustained damage as a direct result of injury to her husband John Hurt, then in your verdict you must find that plaintiff Mary Hurt did not sustain such damage. Instruction Number 10 (See MAI 4.18 (1991 New)) If you find in favor of plaintiff John Hurt, then you must award plaintiff John Hurt such sum as you believe will fairly and justly compensate plaintiff John Hurt for any damages you believe he sustained and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future as a direct result of the occurrence mentioned in the evidence. If you further find that plaintiff Mary Hurt did sustain damage as a direct result of injury to her husband John Hurt, you must award plaintiff Mary Hurt such sum as you believe will fairly and justly compensate plaintiff Mary Hurt for any damages due to injury to her husband which you believe she sustained and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future as a direct result of the occurrence mentioned in the evidence. Verdict (See MAI 36.23 (1991 New)) Note: Complete this form by writing in the name(s) required by your verdict. On the claim of plaintiff John Hurt for personal injuries against defendant Robert Hitter, we, the undersigned jurors, find in favor of: (Plaintiff John Hurt) or (Defendant Robert Hitter) Note: Complete the following paragraphs only if the above finding is in favor of plaintiff John Hurt. We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff John Hurt for his (stating the amount). personal injuries at $ Note: Complete the following paragraph by writing in the word(s) required by your verdict. On the claim of plaintiff Mary Hurt for damages due to injury to her husband John Hurt, we, the undersigned ("did" or "did not") Note: Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is that Mary Hurt "did" sustain such damage. We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Mary Hurt due to (stating the amount). injury to her husband at $ Note: All jurors who agree to the above findings must sign below.