Court Opinion

ID: 9691388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:28:44.619192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:18.142333
License: Public Domain

Grant, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the court’s opinion that plaintiff-appellee’s cross-appeal should be denied. I dissent from the majority’s holding that the trial court erred in sustaining plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the theory that defendant Spangler was negligent as a matter of law and should have directed a verdict as to defendant’s negligence and submitted only the issues of the contributory negligence of plaintiff, if any, and plaintiff’s damages.
I feel that the applicable law is set out in Mitchell v. Kesting, 221 Neb. 506, 508, 378 N.W.2d 188, 190 (1985), where we stated, “ ‘[I]t is established law that a driver who fails to see another who is favored over him is guilty of negligence as a matter of law.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Defendant Spangler made a left turn at an intersection at which he was stopped. He did not see plaintiff approaching so closely that defendant’s vehicle was struck on the right side before defendant could complete his turn. Spangler may have looked, but he testified he did not see plaintiff, who was “favored over him” and had the right-of-way. I would affirm.
White, J., joins in this dissent.