Ratterree v. Bartlett

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that officers who investigate accidents may not give opinion testimony concerning the ultimate question of negligence because it would invade the province of the jury
• holding that a passenger in a car has no legal duty to use a seat belt in anticipation of the driver’s negligence, and that nonuse of a seat belt was inadmissable to compare fault or to prove a failure to mitigate damages
• adopting the rationale from Tapline v. Clark, 626 P.2d 1198 (Kan. App. 1981)
• nonuse of seat belt is not evidence of negligence for purposes of contributory negligence or in mitigation of damages
• agreement must be disclosed to court, and the general terms of the financial interest of a settling defendant in the outcome of the case should be disclosed to the jury
• agreement must be disclosed to court, and the general terms of the financial interest of a settling defendant in the outcome of the case should be disclosed to the jury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).