Court Opinion

ID: 9524268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:51:10.975661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:16.258122
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
In my opinion the failure of the trial court to instruct on the specifications of negligence as alleged and requested by the defendant was prejudicial error which requires that the judgment be reversed.
It is the uniform and proper practice in this state that where specific acts of negligence are charged and supported by the evidence, the trial court instructs as to specific acts so alleged and supported. The failure to do so, even though not requested, is error. Enyeart v. Swartz, 213 Neb. 732, 331 N.W.2d 513 (1983); Pool v. Romatzke, 177 Neb. 870, 131 N.W.2d 593 (1964).
In the Pool case, the defendant’s answer alleged eight specific acts of negligence by the plaintiff, but the trial court instructed the jury only that the defendant claimed that the accident resulted because of the negligence of the plaintiff. We there said:
Nowhere in the instructions was the jury told which acts of the plaintiff the defendant considered to be negligent. Nor was the jury in any way apprised of defendant’s theory of defense as detailed in his answer. What we said in Ripp v. Riesland, 176 Neb. 233, 125 N.W.2d 699, is applicable herein: “It is the duty of the trial court, without request, to submit to and properly instruct the jury upon all the material issues presented by the pleadings and the evidence.
“It is the uniform and proper practice in this state that where specific acts of negligence are charged and supported by the evidence, the trial court instructs as to the specific acts so alleged and supported. The failure to do so, whether or not requested to do so, is error.”
Evidence was adduced which, if believed by the jury, would sustain some of the defendant’s specifications of negligence. These, therefore, were material issues which the defendant was entitled to have properly presented to the jury. We determine that the instructions of the trial court did not adequately present the defendant’s theory of *652the case to the jury, and that the failure to do so constituted prejudical [sic] error.
Pool v. Romatzke, supra at 875-76, 131 N.W.2d at 597.
Caporale, J., joins in this dissent.