Opinion ID: 2507615
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: It Was Error To Grant a Directed Verdict on Comparative Negligence to the Perezes.

Text: At trial, after Noffke had called all witnesses who would testify to the comparative fault of the parties, the Perezes moved for a directed verdict on Jose's comparative negligence, alleging that Noffke had presented no evidence that Jose had been at fault in the accident. After hearing oral arguments from both parties, the court granted the directed verdict motion, noting that there had been no evidence presented that Jose had been doing anything inappropriate at the time of the accident and stating that it did not recall any testimony that both parties were at fault in the accident. Later that day, Noffke filed a supplemental memorandum pointing to her own testimony that both parties were at fault. Noffke also included in her memorandum a proposed jury instruction that driving at or below the posted speed limit does not automatically negate negligence. Noffke argued that based on the road conditions  including the road construction and blocked lane ahead  even if Jose was traveling below the speed limit, he was still traveling at a faster speed than would be considered reasonable. After reviewing this memorandum, the trial court reiterated that there was no evidence whatsoever that Jose had done anything wrong to contribute to the accident and concluded that there was no evidence of comparative negligence to support submission of the issue to the jury. Noffke now points to her testimony on direct examination that she thought both parties were responsible for the accident. The Perezes respond that Noffke's testimony that both of us were at fault for the wreck is oblique and speculative and is insufficient to defeat a motion for a directed verdict. The Perezes also note that all the evidence was that Jose was traveling at a lawful and reasonable speed. We review the trial court's ruling by considering the evidence in its strongest light most favorable to the non-moving party. [40] We apply an objective test in determining whether or not fairminded men in the exercise of reasonable judgment could differ. [41] If there is room for diversity of opinion among reasonable people, then the question is one for the jury. Generally, questions of negligence are left to the jury to decide. [42] Here, the question is whether a jury could have found that Jose breached his duty to drive with proper regard for the safety of himself and others in light of the road work, road conditions, and the speed at which cars in the left-hand lane were driving. At trial, a number of witnesses testified about the speed at which Jose was traveling and the road conditions and construction on Lake Otis Parkway on the day of the accident. Officer Roberts, the officer who responded to the accident, testified that the speed limit on Lake Otis was forty-five miles per hour and that Jose was going about thirty-five miles per hour at the time of the accident. But six days after the accident, Neyda Perez told a doctor that her husband was going forty miles per hour at the time of the accident. Officer Roberts also testified that the accident took place in a construction zone and added that the road conditions were wet and it had been raining or was raining. Officer Roberts also indicated that road work signs were visible at the scene of the accident, alerting drivers to the changed road conditions ahead. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Noffke, the record could support a finding that the right lane ahead of where the accident occurred was blocked due to construction, that the road was wet, that the left lane of traffic had slowed to a crawl, and that Jose was traveling quickly in the empty right-hand lane past the slow-moving cars in the left-hand lane. Sufficient evidence was presented for a jury to conclude that Jose was partially responsible for the crash because he was traveling at a higher speed than a reasonable and prudent person would under the same circumstances. Although the Perezes argue that because Jose was traveling below the posted speed limit, he could not be found negligent, this position is not supported by our case law. [43] While failure to adhere to a posted speed limit might be negligence per se, the opposite is not necessarily true, and adherence to the speed limit does not guarantee a finding that a driver was not negligent. [44] In light of the evidence presented, there was enough for reasonable minds to differ, [45] and therefore the issue of comparative negligence should have been presented to the jury. [46]