Section 19.47 Comparative Fault Not Submissible

• Library: Tort Law 2016

b. (§19.47) Comparative Fault Not Submissible

Under the facts shown at trial, there was no error in refusing a comparative fault jury instruction based on operating a farm implement at a slow speed in a lane reserved for moving traffic. Ruzicka v. Ryder Student Transp. Servs., Inc., 145 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. S.D. 2004), overruled on other grounds byBadahman v. Catering St. Louis, 395 S.W.3d 29 (Mo. banc 2013). The opinion includes the full text of the rejected instruction.

Evidence was not sufficient for a comparative fault instruction "because there was no evidence that a reasonable driver could or should have seen any indication of a danger at a time that would allow him to have the means and ability to use an evasive action to avoid the collision." Hayes v. Price, 313 S.W.3d 645, 652 (Mo. banc 2010).

In an automobile collision case, there was no evidence to support a comparative fault instruction based on failure to yield the right of way when it was not possible for the jury to conclude that the defendant entered the roadway before the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant did not have the right of way and the plaintiff could not have failed to yield the right of way. The portion of the instruction asserting that the plaintiff should have acted to avoid the collision was also not supported because the evidence did not support a conclusion that the plaintiff knew or could have known there was a reasonable likelihood of a collision to have averted the collision. Stevens v. Craft, 956 S.W.2d 351 (Mo. App...