OK · jury_instructions
OUJI-CIV No. 9.19
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS — DEFINITION
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS — DEFINITION
As a part of their defense, [names of Defendants] first deny that any negligence
on their part was the direct cause of the occurrence involved in this lawsuit and any
resulting injuries to [Plaintiff]. [Names of Defendants] further contend that if, however,
the jury should find that any of them were negligent to some degree, then it is their
contention that [Plaintiff's] own negligence exceeded the negligence of [names of
Defendants], so as to prevent any recovery by [Plaintiff] in this lawsuit. To establish this
defense, [names of Defendants] must show by the greater weight of the evidence that
[Plaintiff] was negligent and [his/her] negligence was a direct cause of [his/her] injury.
Under the law you are to compare the percentage (0% —100%) of negligence of
[Plaintiff], if any, with the percentage (0% —100%) of negligence of [names of
Defendants], if any.
The law provides that contributory negligence, which means the negligence of
[Plaintiff], shall not bar recovery of damages unless [his/her] negligence is of a grea ter
OUJI 3d (Rev. 2009) Chapter 9
degree, established by percentage, than the total combined negligence of [names of
Defendants] causing the damage.
The percentage (0% —100%) of negligence you find for each party should be
stated in the appropriate verdict form. The verdict forms have been color –coded to assist
you.
Provenance
- Source
- oscn.net
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-23
- Edition
- 2026-08-23
- Content hash
fdba452723372f90b42d35679377660e7083dceb7c47ec6e23dc32e600d0c7eb
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.