Matthews v. Smith

I dissent from that portion of Division 1 of the majority opinion which holds that special ground 3 of the amended motion for a new trial does not show harmful or reversible error and from the judgment of affirmance. The portion of the charge excepted to in ground 3 was clearly a misstatement of the defendant’s contentions. In his answer, after denying the material allegations of the plain*509tiff’s petition, the defendant alleged four defensive contentions: first, that the plaintiff’s injuries resulted solely from her own failure to exercise ordinary care; second, that if the plaintiff had…