Court Opinion

ID: 9519918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:27:32.896185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:20.642670
License: Public Domain

Wenke, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from the rule announced by the majority opinion as applicable to the statutes involved. The *454rule which is applicable in each case must be ascertained from a consideration of the objects and purposes of the statute or statutes being considered but when a statute creates a duty, though it does not in express terms give a remedy, the remedy which is properly applicable to that obligation follows as an incident thereto.
To me the nature of the duties here imposed and the benefits to be derived from their performance applies to the herds of individual owners of cattle. as well as to the entire cattle industry and the public at large. As stated in Frontier Steam Laundry Co. v. Connolly, 72 Neb. 767, 101 N. W. 995, 68 L. R. A. 425, cited in the majority opinion: “* * * in some cases their purpose is both for the welfare of the public at large and also for the protection of the personal and property rights of individuals. In such case the individual may adduce the failure to perform the duty enjoined as evidence of negligence.” For a more extended discussion see Fimple v. Archer Ballroom Co., 150 Neb. 681, 35 N. W. 2d 680.
Yeager and Chappell, JJ., join in this dissent.