Opinion ID: 1152385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: either disputed facts or conflicting inferences deducible from undisputed facts will compel submission of the officer's and perry's direct negligence as a jury issue

Text: Three evidentiary elements essential to a prima facie case of negligence are: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) a failure properly to exercise or perform that duty and (3) the plaintiff's injuries proximately caused by the defendant's breach. [12] If facts relevant to the question of primary negligence are in dispute, the issue must be submitted to the jury. [13] Whenever uncontroverted proof lends support to conflicting inferences, the choice to be made between opposite alternatives also presents an issue of fact for the trier. [14]
It is uncontroverted that the Officer entered the median without operating his audible siren. Neither is it disputed that traffic behind him was fanning out into the unblocked beginning of the right lane. One potential inference from this evidence is that, under the circumstances, the Officer may have created a foreseeable risk of harm. Although this inference is permissibly drawn from undisputed facts, the Officer's primary negligence nonetheless presents a question for the trier. [15]
Whether Perry had sufficient opportunity to negotiate around the protruding Jones vehicle is in controversy. On this record it is impossible for us to say as a matter of law that Perry's stopping was consistent with due care because his conduct was free from a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm.