Opinion ID: 1700749
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: evidence of violations of nebraska laws

Text: Golden Eagle sought to introduce evidence that Nebraska laws prohibited the use of the Victory Celebration there. Golden Eagle also requested instructions that the transportation and use of this type of fireworks were illegal in Nebraska, and that violations of the statutes and regulations by Misty, Michael, and David evidenced their negligence. The trial court refused to admit evidence of the Nebraska laws, concluding those laws were irrelevant, and refused to give the requested instructions. Golden Eagle designates its argument on appeal as whether the court erred in failing to give the instructions requested. The crucial question, however, is not the failure to instruct, but the admissibility of the evidence. It is not error for a court to refuse to give requested instructions not warranted by the evidence. Dale v. Cronquist, 493 N.W.2d 667, 670 (N.D.1992); In re Estate of Ambers, 477 N.W.2d 218, 221 (N.D.1991). The failure to give requested instructions becomes reversible only if the court erred in keeping out the evidence. Section 28-1244, Neb.Rev.Stat., says: Fireworks; unlawful acts. Except as provided in section 28-1245, it shall be unlawful for any person to possess, sell, offer for sale, bring into this state, or discharge any fireworks other than permissible fireworks. Permissible fireworks is defined in Section 28-1241(7), Neb.Rev.Stat., and various state regulations identify those that are permissible. Misty concedes that the Victory Celebration was not permissible fireworks in Nebraska. Golden Eagle argues that Misty and Michael transported the device into Nebraska in violation of the statute, and that David discharged the device in Nebraska in violation of the statute. Golden Eagle further argues that these statutory violations are evidence of negligence that should have been compared with Golden Eagle's fault under our comparative fault law. Golden Eagle correctly states that violation of a statute, although not negligence per se, may evidence negligence. See Gronneberg v. Hoffart, 466 N.W.2d 809, 812 (N.D.1991); Keyes v. Amundson, 391 N.W.2d 602, 608 (N.D.1986). See also Restatement of Torts 2d § 286 (1965). For negligence, however, there must be a showing of a causal connection between the violation of the statute and the injury. Ross by Kanta v. Scott, 386 N.W.2d 18, 24 (N.D.1986). See also Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 36 (5th ed. 1984). Golden Eagle seeks to supply this causal connection by arguing, Had the Horstmeyers acted in accordance with the law of Nebraska, the fireworks would not have acted in Nebraska at all. This is akin to arguing that driving a vehicle without a license in violation of a statute is negligence, because otherwise the accident would not have happened. In other decisions, like Dewitz by Nuestel v. Emery, 508 N.W.2d 334, 337-38 (N.D.1993), and Ross, 386 N.W.2d at 24, we have rejected the notion that evidence of driving without a license is admissible to show negligence. In this case, Golden Eagle's argument would create the ultimate irony. Golden Eagle essentially argues that its product was so dangerous that any use of it at all, at least within the State of Nebraska, was negligence. Under the theory urged by Golden Eagle, the Horstmeyers are guilty of negligence even if they used the product in the precise manner intended and directed by the manufacturer and seller. Responsibility would result from the geographical location of the product's use, not from the actual manner of its use. We believe public policy does not allow avoidance of liability by a seller of a defective product in this way. Also, Golden Eagle thus seeks to minimize Misty's recovery for her own conduct in only passively participating in the transportation of the fireworks into Nebraska. We assume that Misty, who was injured while an innocent observer of the fireworks display, was among the class of persons intended to be protected by the statutory prohibition of certain fireworks. But, surely, the statute was not intended to shield manufacturers and sellers of defective fireworks from full liability to injured bystanders. In a case like this, where the seller of a defective product seeks to avoid liability, not by the manner that the product was used, but by the geographical location where it was used, in a state that has banned its use, we conclude that evidence of the statutory ban is irrelevant and inadmissible to show negligence by the users of the product. The trial court did not err in refusing to admit evidence of Nebraska's statutes and regulations, or in refusing to instruct about violation of those statutes and regulations.