Opinion ID: 1894414
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: negligence; directed verdict or jury question

Text: `To determine whether conduct constitutes negligence, the invariable standard is reasonable care, although reasonable care is directly proportional to the danger inherent in conduct and may vary depending on the circumstances.' Rahmig v. Mosley Machinery Co., 226 Neb. 423, 452, 412 N.W.2d 56, 75 (1987) (quoting from Lynn v. Metropolitan Utilities Dist., 225 Neb. 121, 403 N.W.2d 335 (1987)). `The defendant's conduct is a cause of the event if the event would not have occurred but for that conduct; conversely, the defendant's conduct is not a cause of the event, if the event would have occurred without it.' Saporta v. State, 220 Neb. 142, 149, 368 N.W.2d 783, 787 (1985) (quoting from Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, Proximate Cause § 41 (5th ed. 1984)). A court should not decide an issue as a matter of law unless the facts adduced to sustain an issue are such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion therefrom. [Citation omitted.] Thus, in a jury trial, when evidence compels but one reasonable conclusion regarding an issue or question in the litigation, a court may properly direct a verdict on such issue or question. Rahmig v. Mosley Machinery Co., supra at 449, 412 N.W.2d at 74.