Court Opinion

ID: 9715612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:10:15.111359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:36.307911
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.,
dissenting;
The facts of the injury to plaintiff permit, but do not compel, an inference of causative negligence on the part of defendant. The situation is a type that may be subject to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and plaintiff established the requisite elements. Contrast Sipprell v. Merner Motors, 164 Neb. 447, 82 N. W. 2d 648 (1957).
The doctrine doés not denominate a defendant an insurer, for it is simply an evidentiary rule that carries *722the claim to the trier of fact. See, McCall v. St. Joseph’s Hospital, 184 Neb. 1, 165 N. W. 2d 85 (1969); Benedict v. Eppley Hotel Co., 159 Neb. 23, 65 N. W. 2d 224 (1954).
I respectfully dissent.