effect of an erroneous instruction in Indiana

1979As stated in New York Central Railroad Co. v. Knoll (1965), 140 Ind.App. 264, at 266 , 204 N.E.2d 220 , at 222: “In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction, we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the evidence, or by some part of the record, such error did not affect the results, and that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different. [Citations omitted.]” The record contains nothing which would lead to a conclusion that the jury’s verdict was unaffected by the instructions on false arrest and negligence.

1979As stated in New York Central Railroad Co. v. Knoll (1965), 140 Ind.App. 264, at 266 , 204 N.E.2d 220 , at 222: “In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction, we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the evidence, or by some part of the record, such error did not affect the results, and that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different. [Citations omitted.]” The record contains nothing which would lead to a conclusion that the jury’s verdict was unaffected by the instructions on false arrest and negligence.

1976Co. v. Cornell (1948), 225 Ind. 559, 569 , 76 N.E.2d 562 , 566: "It is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different." The quotation also appears in Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205

1976Co. v. Cornell (1948), 225 Ind. 559, 569 , 76 N.E.2d 562 , 566: "It is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different." The quotation also appears in Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205

1957Co. v. Cornell, supra; Hayes Freight Lines v. Wilson (1948) 226 Ind. 1, 13 , 77 N. E. 2d 580 ; Dallas & Mavis Fwdg.

1957Co. v. Cornell, supra; Hayes Freight Lines v. Wilson (1948) 226 Ind. 1, 13 , 77 N. E. 2d 580 ; Dallas & Mavis Fwdg.

2008Co. v. Langford, 349 N.E.2d 744, 769 (Ind.Ct.App.1976), vacated, 267 Ind. 176 , 369 N.E.2d 404 (Ind. 1977) (collecting cases).

2008Co. v. Langford, 349 N.E.2d 744, 769 (Ind.Ct.App.1976), vacated, 267 Ind. 176 , 369 N.E.2d 404 (Ind. 1977) (collecting cases).

1976See Chrysler Corporation v. Alumbaugh (1976) Ind. App., 342 N.E.2d 908 ; Honey Creek Corp. v. WNC Development Co. (1975), Ind. App., 331 N.E.2d 452 ; Coffey v. Wininger, supra ; Rondinelli v. Bowden, supra ; Spears v. Aylor (1974), Ind. App., 319 N.E.2d 639 ; Wickizer v. Medley (1976), Ind. App., 348 N.E.2d 96 (handed down on June 7, 1976).

1976See Chrysler Corporation v. Alumbaugh (1976) Ind. App., 342 N.E.2d 908 ; Honey Creek Corp. v. WNC Development Co. (1975), Ind. App., 331 N.E.2d 452 ; Coffey v. Wininger, supra ; Rondinelli v. Bowden, supra ; Spears v. Aylor (1974), Ind. App., 319 N.E.2d 639 ; Wickizer v. Medley (1976), Ind. App., 348 N.E.2d 96 (handed down on June 7, 1976).

1976See Chrysler Corporation v. Alumbaugh (1976) Ind. App., 342 N.E.2d 908 ; Honey Creek Corp. v. WNC Development Co. (1975), Ind. App., 331 N.E.2d 452 ; Coffey v. Wininger, supra ; Rondinelli v. Bowden, supra ; Spears v. Aylor (1974), Ind. App., 319 N.E.2d 639 ; Wickizer v. Medley (1976), Ind. App., 348 N.E.2d 96 (handed down on June 7, 1976).

1976See Chrysler Corporation v. Alumbaugh (1976) Ind. App., 342 N.E.2d 908 ; Honey Creek Corp. v. WNC Development Co. (1975), Ind. App., 331 N.E.2d 452 ; Coffey v. Wininger, supra ; Rondinelli v. Bowden, supra ; Spears v. Aylor (1974), Ind. App., 319 N.E.2d 639 ; Wickizer v. Medley (1976), Ind. App., 348 N.E.2d 96 (handed down on June 7, 1976).

1976See Chrysler Corporation v. Alumbaugh (1976) Ind. App., 342 N.E.2d 908 ; Honey Creek Corp. v. WNC Development Co. (1975), Ind. App., 331 N.E.2d 452 ; Coffey v. Wininger, supra ; Rondinelli v. Bowden, supra ; Spears v. Aylor (1974), Ind. App., 319 N.E.2d 639 ; Wickizer v. Medley (1976), Ind. App., 348 N.E.2d 96 (handed down on June 7, 1976).

1974Louis Railroad Company v. Henderson (1957), 237 Ind. 456 , 147 N.E.2d 239 , cited the general rule on the effect of an erroneous instruction as follows: “• . . it is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this Court assumes that the error influenced the rest unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record, that the verdict under proper circumstances could not have been different. . . .” Under the rule laid down by Chief Justice Em

1974Louis Railroad Company v. Henderson (1957), 237 Ind. 456 , 147 N.E.2d 239 , cited the general rule on the effect of an erroneous instruction as follows: “• . . it is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this Court assumes that the error influenced the rest unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record, that the verdict under proper circumstances could not have been different. . . .” Under the rule laid down by Chief Justice Em

1969“By reason of such erroneous instruction, the case to that extent was tried on an improper legal definition of the duty owed by the appellant under the circumstances, and justice was not done.” See also Jones v. Beasley (1921), 191 Ind. 209 , 131 N. E. 225 ; New York Central RR. v. Knoll (1965), 140 Ind. App. 264 , 204 N. E. 2d 220 ; City of Evansville v. Cunningham (1964), 138 Ind. App. 39 , 202 N. E. 2d 384 ; Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Smith (1956), 126 Ind. App. 332 , 133 N. E. 2d 72 ; Hatton v. Hodell Furniture Co. (1920), 72 Ind. App. 357 , 125 N. E. 797 .

1969In Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N.E.2d 723 , the court in holding an instruction erroneous as not applicable to the issues or the evidence said at page 360: "The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law relevant to the issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial. (citations omitted) "In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the

1969In Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N.E.2d 723 , the court in holding an instruction erroneous as not applicable to the issues or the evidence said at page 360: "The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law relevant to the issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial. (citations omitted) "In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the

1969In Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N.E.2d 723 , the court in holding an instruction erroneous as not applicable to the issues or the evidence said at page 360: "The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law relevant to the issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial. (citations omitted) "In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the

1969“By reason of such erroneous instruction, the case to that extent was tried on an improper legal definition of the duty owed by the appellant under the circumstances, and justice was not done.” See also Jones v. Beasley (1921), 191 Ind. 209 , 131 N. E. 225 ; New York Central RR. v. Knoll (1965), 140 Ind. App. 264 , 204 N. E. 2d 220 ; City of Evansville v. Cunningham (1964), 138 Ind. App. 39 , 202 N. E. 2d 384 ; Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Smith (1956), 126 Ind. App. 332 , 133 N. E. 2d 72 ; Hatton v. Hodell Furniture Co. (1920), 72 Ind. App. 357 , 125 N. E. 797 .

1969In Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N.E.2d 723 , the court in holding an instruction erroneous as not applicable to the issues or the evidence said at page 360: "The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law relevant to the issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial. (citations omitted) "In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the

1969In Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N.E.2d 723 , the court in holding an instruction erroneous as not applicable to the issues or the evidence said at page 360: "The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law relevant to the issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial. (citations omitted) "In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the

1969In Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N.E.2d 723 , the court in holding an instruction erroneous as not applicable to the issues or the evidence said at page 360: "The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law relevant to the issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial. (citations omitted) "In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the

1969In Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N.E.2d 723 , the court in holding an instruction erroneous as not applicable to the issues or the evidence said at page 360: "The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law relevant to the issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial. (citations omitted) "In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the

1969In Public Service Co. of Indiana v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind. App. 353 , 92 N.E.2d 723 , the court in holding an instruction erroneous as not applicable to the issues or the evidence said at page 360: "The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement of the law upon a given state of facts, but whether it correctly states the law relevant to the issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial. (citations omitted) "In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction we must assume that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the

1957Sweeney v. Vierbuchen (1946), 224 Ind. 341, 347 , 66 N.E.2d 764 : "... `In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different.' Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205 , 115 N.E. 577 ." See also American Employers' Ins.

1957Sweeney v. Vierbuchen (1946), 224 Ind. 341, 347 , 66 N.E.2d 764 : "... `In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different.' Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205 , 115 N.E. 577 ." See also American Employers' Ins.