Opinion ID: 1826758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: reasonable wear and tear

Text: Earl asserts that the district court erred in failing to find that the damage to the parking lot resulted from reasonable wear and tear. Determination of causation is, ordinarily, a matter for the trier of fact. Mendoza v. Omaha Meat Processors, 225 Neb. 771, 778, 408 N.W.2d 280, 285 (1987). Accord, Heiliger v. Walters & Heiliger Electric, Inc., 236 Neb. 459, 461 N.W.2d 565 (1990); Union Pacific RR. Co. v. Kaiser Ag. Chem. Co., 229 Neb. 160, 425 N.W.2d 872 (1988). Whether damage to the parking lot resulted from reasonable wear and tear or resulted from a breach of the covenant to maintain and repair the premises was a factual question for the district court, which concluded that the damage was caused by Earl's failure to maintain and repair the parking lot. The district court's factual determination concerning the cause of damage to the parking lot is not clearly erroneous.