Court Opinion

ID: 9603084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:03:12.162487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:08.416395
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HASWELL
dissenting:
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.
*162In my view the issues of negligence and contributory negligence in this case are issues to be determined by the jury, not questions of law to be decided by the Justices of this Court on appeal. Both negligence and contributory negligence consist of a want of ordinary care, i.e., a failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would have done under the circumstances or doing what such person would not have done under existing circumstances. In my opinion, the evidence in this case is capable of more than one interpretation, the jury interpreted it in favor of defendant, and the jury determination should stand.