give instruction in Indiana

2005"Rather, it is the equally long-standing rule that unless it is the duty of the court to give the instruction precisely as requested, it does not commit error by refusing to submit the instruction to the jury." Id.

1985Although it might have been preferable for the trial court here to excise the objectionable portions of this instruction to get the Mitchells standard of care instruction before the jury, "unless it is the duty of the court to give the instruction precisely as requested, it does not commit error by refusing to submit the instruction to the jury." Mullins v. Bunch (1981), Ind., 425 N.E.2d 164, 166 . .

1991Id.

1989Brown v. State (1985), Ind., 485 N.E.2d 108 .

1987Flowers, supra. Indeed, the court instructed the jury: (1) to give separate and fair consideration to each defendant (Instruction 2); (2) that it could find for only some or for all of the defendants (Instruction 41 and 42); (3) that there were sixteen possible verdicts (Instruction 44); and (4) what constituted the Plaintiff's burden of proof in negligence against each defendant (Instructions 7 to 10).

1987Flowers, supra .

1985In light of the discretion with which a trial court is vested regarding instruction of the jury, Buttram v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 598 , 382 N.E.2d 166 , we decline to hold it reversible error per se for the trial court to refuse the above instruction.

1985In light of the discretion with which a trial court is vested regarding instruction of the jury, Buttram v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 598 , 382 N.E.2d 166 , we decline to hold it reversible error per se for the trial court to refuse the above instruction.

1982In the co-defendant’s appeal, Abrams v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 345, 347 , this Court addressed the identical issue stating: “Defendant also contends that it was erroneous for the court to give an instruction on being an accessory since he was charged as a principal in the perpetration of the crimes.

1981Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co., (1959) 239 Ind. 612 , 158 N.E.2d 460 ; American Motor Car Co. v. Robbins, (1913) 181 Ind. 417 , 103 N.E. 641 ; Rogers et al. v. Leyden, (1890) 127 Ind. 50 , 26 N.E. 210 ; State, Highway Commission v. Jones, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 243 , 363 N.E.2d 1018 ; Fetter v. Powers, (1948) 118 Ind.App. 367 , 78 N.E.2d 555 .

1981Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co., (1959) 239 Ind. 612 , 158 N.E.2d 460 ; American Motor Car Co. v. Robbins, (1913) 181 Ind. 417 , 103 N.E. 641 ; Rogers et al. v. Leyden, (1890) 127 Ind. 50 , 26 N.E. 210 ; State, Highway Commission v. Jones, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 243 , 363 N.E.2d 1018 ; Fetter v. Powers, (1948) 118 Ind.App. 367 , 78 N.E.2d 555 .

1981Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co., (1959) 239 Ind. 612 , 158 N.E.2d 460 ; American Motor Car Co. v. Robbins, (1913) 181 Ind. 417 , 103 N.E. 641 ; Rogers et al. v. Leyden, (1890) 127 Ind. 50 , 26 N.E. 210 ; State, Highway Commission v. Jones, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 243 , 363 N.E.2d 1018 ; Fetter v. Powers, (1948) 118 Ind.App. 367 , 78 N.E.2d 555 .

1981Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co., (1959) 239 Ind. 612 , 158 N.E.2d 460 ; American Motor Car Co. v. Robbins, (1913) 181 Ind. 417 , 103 N.E. 641 ; Rogers et al. v. Leyden, (1890) 127 Ind. 50 , 26 N.E. 210 ; State, Highway Commission v. Jones, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 243 , 363 N.E.2d 1018 ; Fetter v. Powers, (1948) 118 Ind.App. 367 , 78 N.E.2d 555 .

1981Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co., (1959) 239 Ind. 612 , 158 N.E.2d 460 ; American Motor Car Co. v. Robbins, (1913) 181 Ind. 417 , 103 N.E. 641 ; Rogers et al. v. Leyden, (1890) 127 Ind. 50 , 26 N.E. 210 ; State, Highway Commission v. Jones, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 243 , 363 N.E.2d 1018 ; Fetter v. Powers, (1948) 118 Ind.App. 367 , 78 N.E.2d 555 .

1981Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co., (1959) 239 Ind. 612 , 158 N.E.2d 460 ; American Motor Car Co. v. Robbins, (1913) 181 Ind. 417 , 103 N.E. 641 ; Rogers et al. v. Leyden, (1890) 127 Ind. 50 , 26 N.E. 210 ; State, Highway Commission v. Jones, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 243 , 363 N.E.2d 1018 ; Fetter v. Powers, (1948) 118 Ind.App. 367 , 78 N.E.2d 555 .

1981Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co., (1959) 239 Ind. 612 , 158 N.E.2d 460 ; American Motor Car Co. v. Robbins, (1913) 181 Ind. 417 , 103 N.E. 641 ; Rogers et al. v. Leyden, (1890) 127 Ind. 50 , 26 N.E. 210 ; State, Highway Commission v. Jones, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 243 , 363 N.E.2d 1018 ; Fetter v. Powers, (1948) 118 Ind.App. 367 , 78 N.E.2d 555 .

1981Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co., (1959) 239 Ind. 612 , 158 N.E.2d 460 ; American Motor Car Co. v. Robbins, (1913) 181 Ind. 417 , 103 N.E. 641 ; Rogers et al. v. Leyden, (1890) 127 Ind. 50 , 26 N.E. 210 ; State, Highway Commission v. Jones, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 243 , 363 N.E.2d 1018 ; Fetter v. Powers, (1948) 118 Ind.App. 367 , 78 N.E.2d 555 .

1981Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co., (1959) 239 Ind. 612 , 158 N.E.2d 460 ; American Motor Car Co. v. Robbins, (1913) 181 Ind. 417 , 103 N.E. 641 ; Rogers et al. v. Leyden, (1890) 127 Ind. 50 , 26 N.E. 210 ; State, Highway Commission v. Jones, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 243 , 363 N.E.2d 1018 ; Fetter v. Powers, (1948) 118 Ind.App. 367 , 78 N.E.2d 555 .

1981Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co., (1959) 239 Ind. 612 , 158 N.E.2d 460 ; American Motor Car Co. v. Robbins, (1913) 181 Ind. 417 , 103 N.E. 641 ; Rogers et al. v. Leyden, (1890) 127 Ind. 50 , 26 N.E. 210 ; State, Highway Commission v. Jones, (1977) 173 Ind.App. 243 , 363 N.E.2d 1018 ; Fetter v. Powers, (1948) 118 Ind.App. 367 , 78 N.E.2d 555 .

1974Adkins v. Elvard (1973), 155 Ind. App. 672 , 294 N.E.2d 160 , 35 Ind. Dec. 675 (transfer denied).

1974Adkins v. Elvard (1973), 155 Ind. App. 672 , 294 N.E.2d 160 , 35 Ind. Dec. 675 (transfer denied).

1969Consistent with Miller v. Alvey, we must hold it was error for the court to give instruction No. 5.” In Rust v. Watson (1966), 141 Ind. App. 59 , 215 N. E. 2d 42 , 217 N. E. 2d 859 (Transfer denied), the court stated at pages 48 and 49 of 215 N. E. 2d as follows: “Appellants’ Instruction No. 34 which was refused provided : “ ‘I instruct you that the laws of the State of Indiana recognize the possibility of a mere accident, that is, an occurrence which is in no way due to the fault or negligence of anyone. “ ‘The happening of a mere accident, resulting in injury cannot support a verdict for dam

1969Consistent with Miller v. Alvey, we must hold it was error for the court to give instruction No. 5.” In Rust v. Watson (1966), 141 Ind. App. 59 , 215 N. E. 2d 42 , 217 N. E. 2d 859 (Transfer denied), the court stated at pages 48 and 49 of 215 N. E. 2d as follows: “Appellants’ Instruction No. 34 which was refused provided : “ ‘I instruct you that the laws of the State of Indiana recognize the possibility of a mere accident, that is, an occurrence which is in no way due to the fault or negligence of anyone. “ ‘The happening of a mere accident, resulting in injury cannot support a verdict for dam

1966Consistent with Miller v. Alvey, we must hold it was error for the court to give instruction No. 5.” (Emphasis supplied) Our Court in a recent case entitled Letcher Blanton v. Will Gifford Upchurch (1965), 138 Ind. App. 132 , 212 N. E. (2d) 177, held that in light of the Miller and White cases, it is now reversible error to give an instruction in an action based on negligence in which instruction the term “mere accident,” or any term of a similar nature is defined.

1964Fuller v. Thrun (1941), 109 Ind. App. 407 , 31 N. E. 2d 670 .

1964Fuller v. Thrun (1941), 109 Ind. App. 407 , 31 N. E. 2d 670 .

1961Brush v. Public Service Co. of Indiana (1939), 106 Ind. App. 554 , 21 N. E. 2d 83 .

1961Brush v. Public Service Co. of Indiana (1939), 106 Ind. App. 554 , 21 N. E. 2d 83 .

1925Farley v. State (1891), 127 Ind. 419 , 26 N. E. 898 .

1925Farley v. State (1891), 127 Ind. 419 , 26 N. E. 898 .

1921Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. v. Senour, Admx. (1919), 71 Ind. App. 10 , 122 N. E. 772 and cases cited.

1921Indianapolis, etc., Traction Co. v. Senour, Admx. (1919), 71 Ind. App. 10 , 122 N. E. 772 and cases cited.

1918Kaufman v. Alexander (1913), 180 Ind. 670 , 103 N. E. 481 .

1918Kaufman v. Alexander (1913), 180 Ind. 670 , 103 N. E. 481 .

1913Appellants complain of the refusal of the court to give instruction No. 22 tendered by them, which, in substance, informed the jury that if with full knowledge of all the facts of the transaction appellee retained all the proceeds thereof and ratified the same, the “verdict must be for the defendants.” In Johnson v. Culver (1888), 116 Ind. 278, 285 , 19 N. E. 129 , the Supreme Court declared the law applicable to the question presented by the refusal of an instruction, as follows: “The retention of property by a party who has suffered loss from the fraud of another does not preclude the loser

1913Appellants complain of the refusal of the court to give instruction No. 22 tendered by them, which, in substance, informed the jury that if with full knowledge of all the facts of the transaction appellee retained all the proceeds thereof and ratified the same, the “verdict must be for the defendants.” In Johnson v. Culver (1888), 116 Ind. 278, 285 , 19 N. E. 129 , the Supreme Court declared the law applicable to the question presented by the refusal of an instruction, as follows: “The retention of property by a party who has suffered loss from the fraud of another does not preclude the loser

1912Dunn v. State (1906), 166 Ind. 694, 701, 702 ; Carpenter v. State (1873), 43 Ind. 371 ; Banks v. State (1901), 157 Ind. 190, 203, 204 ; Fleming v. State (1894), 136 Ind. 149, 153, 154 ; Wollery v. Louisville, etc., R.

1896The proper remedy for such an omission is, not an exception to the instruction given, but a request to the court to give an instruction supplying or covering the omission.” Hatton, Exr., v. Jones, 78 Ind. 466 ; Colee v. State, 75 Ind. 511 ; Blacketer v. House, 67 Ind. 414 ; DuSouchet v. Dutcher, 113 Ind. 249 ; Cincinnati, etc., R.

1896The proper remedy for such an omission is, not an exception to the instruction given, but a request to the court to give an instruction supplying or covering the omission.” Hatton, Exr., v. Jones, 78 Ind. 466 ; Colee v. State, 75 Ind. 511 ; Blacketer v. House, 67 Ind. 414 ; DuSouchet v. Dutcher, 113 Ind. 249 ; Cincinnati, etc., R.

1896The proper remedy for such an omission is, not an exception to the instruction given, but a request to the court to give an instruction supplying or covering the omission.” Hatton, Exr., v. Jones, 78 Ind. 466 ; Colee v. State, 75 Ind. 511 ; Blacketer v. House, 67 Ind. 414 ; DuSouchet v. Dutcher, 113 Ind. 249 ; Cincinnati, etc., R.

1896The proper remedy for such an omission is, not an exception to the instruction given, but a request to the court to give an instruction supplying or covering the omission.” Hatton, Exr., v. Jones, 78 Ind. 466 ; Colee v. State, 75 Ind. 511 ; Blacketer v. House, 67 Ind. 414 ; DuSouchet v. Dutcher, 113 Ind. 249 ; Cincinnati, etc., R.

1894In Faris v. Soberg, 134 Ind. 269 , we reviewed many of the cases and reaffirmed the right and the duty of the trial court to take the question from the jury (upon proper request and instruction tendered) when any element essential to the finding of the fact in issue has not been proven, or there is not evidence of such fact from which, when undisputed, the jury would be justified in concluding that such fact existed. .