Darryl Clayton v. Llb Timber Company, Inc., and William George Henderson

Summary

The court held that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on mechanical failure because the defendants presented no substantial evidence that a mechanical failure actually occurred. The error was prejudicial because the court could not determine that the verdict rested on an alternative ground, so it reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. Justice Murdock, dissenting, would have upheld the instruction because the jury could reasonably infer brake failure from Henderson's testimony that he set the brakes.