Zartner v. Scopp

The appellants-defendants contend that the causal negligence of plaintiff Zartner was as a matter of law at least equal to that of defendant Scopp, and, therefore, the judgment should be reversed and the complaint be dismissed. If the court decides this contention adversely to appellants, they then request a reversal and new trial on the following alleged grounds of prejudicial error:(1) The jury’s finding that Scopp’s negligence was causal with respect to failure to have turned on his headlights has no support in the evidence.(2) Likewise the jury’s finding that Scopp’s negligence was causal…