Alvin Glay v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., ...

Summary

The court held that Glay did not invite the jury-instruction error by opposing the superseding-intervening-cause instruction. In an innkeeper-negligence case, the jury should not be instructed on superseding intervening cause when the alleged superseding conduct is the same conduct whose foreseeability is required to establish negligence, because the duplicative instructions can confuse and mislead the jury. Because the court could not determine whether that confusion affected the verdict, it affirmed the order requiring a new trial on R.C.'s liability and related damages.