Court Opinion

ID: 9722283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:23:27.498998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:33.413533
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority opinion, in the paragraph beginning with the words “Section 39-614(l)(a) already provides,” reconciles the statute pertaining *572to traffic lights and the right-of-way given thereby and the right-of-way arising from the Omaha ordinance by reason of the Lee car being part of a funeral procession. That paragraph now tells a trial judge the type of instruction which is appropriate in such cases.
However, no such reconciling instruction was given in this case and the appellant’s complaint with reference to the instruction given is not dealt with in the opinion at all.
In effect the instructions told the jury that the green light which Herman had would give her the right-of-way. Other instructions and the one of which Herman complains told the jury the Lee car could have the right-of-way by reason of the ordinance. It did not tell the jury how to apply these conflicting instructions.
We summarize by quoting, with the modifications indicated, the last paragraph of the appellant’s brief: “If the ordinance can be harmonized in some other way with the state statute, that harmony was not embodied in the trial court’s instructions. The trial court in instruction three charged on the ordinance. In instruction 11 it defined right of way. In instruction 12 it charged that the car with the green light had the right of way. Thus, under the court’s instructions, both cars had the right of way. The car in the funeral procession under the ordinance and the car with the green light under the statute. The court charged that drivers had the right to assume that others would obey the law until they had notice to the contrary. Thus under the court’s instructions, each car either had the right to proceed into the intersection until it knew the other car was proceeding, or each car had to wait until the other car had proceeded. Thus, the court instructed the jury that the law either created a situation in which an accident was inevitable, or required each car to wait until the other had [proceeded].... If the trial court believed that the ordinance and the statute could be harmonized, the *573method of reconciliation should have been included in the instruction. It was not.”
I believe the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for new trial with proper instructions.