Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Busta Ex Rel. Busta v. Columbus Hospital Corp.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 1996No. 95-050Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Erdmann

I concur in the majority’s opinion on Issues 1, 2, and 4, but write separately to dissent on Issue 3.

I disagree with the majority’s holding that the District Court’s failure to instruct on proximate cause was harmless error. I am convinced that the failure to define proximate cause for the jury was reversible error. In fact, the jury received no instructions at all which defined causation. Furthermore, I disagree with the majority’s analysis of foreseeability as applied to proximate cause and therefore dissent from the majority’s decision to overrule the requirement in Kitchen Krafters v.…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. McCain v. Florida Power CorporationSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
  2. Calkins v. Cox EstatesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Kitchen Krafters, Inc. v. Eastside BankMontana Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Thayer v. HicksMontana Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Nelson v. Commonwealth Edison Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1984

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API