Kuta v. Newberg

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that a sole proximate cause defense is incompatible with the doctrine of comparative fault
• explaining that where the defendant asserted the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, the defendant was not entitled to submission of the defense
• explaining that although the jury should not have been instructed as to sole proximate cause, the jury rejected the defense by assessing fault against both the plaintiff and the defendant
• stating in cases involving claims of excessive damages, we “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff’
• rejecting plaintiffs argument for punitive damages in reliance on conclusion that two prior, unrelated accidents demonstrated defendant was unfit to drive
• denying recovery of consortium damages for an adult child under the statute even though “public policy might well support a different rule”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).