Trial Court Should Have Permitted Jury Instructions as to Driver’s Duty to 'Exercise Due Care' and Traveling in Excess of Speed Limit Despite the Specific Proposed Language Placed an Arguably Inaccurate Emphasis on Defendant’s Conduct.

This case involved a defense verdict where the trial court denied the plaintiff’s requested jury instructions as to a driver’s responsibility to exercise due care to avoid a pedestrian and to not travel over the speed limit. However, the plaintiff’s proposed “due care” instruction included qualifying language stating, “Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter”—for example, the duty of pedestrians—and the proposed instruction placed the emphasis on the driver’s duty versus that of the pedestrian or bicyclist. 

The Appeals Court also ruled the speeding instruction was warranted despite not citing any data that the defendant exceeded the speed limit, just the opinion of an accident reconstructionist, which appeared to be based on testimonial accounts and a vehicle damage profile yet only concluded the defendant was traveling “approximately 33 miles per hour” in a 30 miles per hour zone. Despite the prejudicial nature of both charges, the Appeals Court overturned the defense verdict and remanded for a new trial.

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}