Opinion ID: 2138845
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Defendant's Negligence.

Text: The trial court stated that it was very difficult to see that defendant was negligent at all. If the trial court had been the trier of fact, this position would be entirely tenable; however, the jury was the trier of fact. Can it be said that Rydberg was not negligent as a matter of law? If the jury believed that Rydberg had been informed by the plaintiff of the latter's intention to check the refrigeration unit, the jury may properly have deemed it an act of negligence on the part of Rydberg to have moved the truck without first ascertaining the whereabouts of his assistant. Rydberg was not relieved of the potentiality of negligence because while in the driver's seat he was unable to observe a person under the truck. The trial court also observed that before Rydberg started the truck, plaintiff was standing only a very short distance from the door of the truck. However, Tanberg testified  that three or four minutes elapsed between the time he left the presence of the defendant and the time he moved under the trailer; this testimony is not inherently incredible, and, if the jury believed it, it would follow that Rydberg moved the truck without checking as to the current whereabouts of his assistant. In our opinion, the evidence, considered in a vein most favorable to the plaintiff, would have permitted the jury to conclude that Rydberg was negligent in moving the truck without observing or accounting for the location of his assistant. By the Court. Judgment reversed, with directions to reinstate the verdict of the jury.