Lutz v. Faith
This text of 386 P.2d 85 (Lutz v. Faith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellant was defendant in a negligence action. He appeals from a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The only assignment of error is that in his charge on contributory negligence the trial judge used the permissive “may” rather than the mandatory “must” in instructing the jury on whether they should return a verdict for the defendant if they found the plaintiff contributorily negligent.
Appellant concedes that our decision in Layton v. Rocha, 90 Ariz. 369, 368 P.2d 444 is controlling on this point, but asks us to reconsider and overrule that decision. We are of the opinion that our decision in Lay-ton v. Rocha, supra, was correct, adequately explained the reason for the rule, and we are disposed neither to overrule nor to enlarge on the decision in that case.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
386 P.2d 85, 95 Ariz. 40, 1963 Ariz. LEXIS 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lutz-v-faith-ariz-1963.