Court Opinion

ID: 9675986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:11:38.459468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:42.321795
License: Public Domain

Gerrard, J.,
concurring.
Because the jury instructions, taken as a whole, were prejudicial and adversely affected Patty Tapp’s right to a fair trial, I concur in the judgment of reversal in the instant case. However, I write separately to address the issue of properly instructing a jury in the event that a nonparty is, as a matter of law, found to be negligent by the trial court.
Although I agree with the majority that it is not error per se to instruct the jury that a nonparty third person is negligent as a matter of law, this case illustrates why it is rarely a good idea to give such an instruction. Since the determination of causation is ordinarily a question for the trier of fact, Millard v. Goodyear *58Tire & Rubber Co., 239 Neb. 1014, 480 N.W.2d 162 (1992), that determination should be made on an even playing field and with instructions clearly delineating the fact finder’s role.
Thus, if a nonparty is, as a matter of law, found to be negligent, how should the jury be fairly instructed regarding the issues of proximate cause and concurrent cause? Even though we have never been confronted with this precise issue, the case of Schreiber v. Smelting Co., 157 Ohio St. 1, 104 N.E.2d 4 (1952), cited by the majority, is instructive in answering the question. In Schreiber, the plaintiff sued the defendant to recover for personal injuries sustained in a collision between an automobile in which she was a passenger and a truck owned by the defendant. The defendant’s truck had been placed across the street so that it blocked the east portion and protruded approximately 2 feet into the west portion of the street. The district court instructed the jury, as a matter of law, that the driver of the car in which the plaintiff was riding was guilty of negligence. The district court then instructed the jury in pertinent part:
“[I]f you find by a preponderance of the evidence that [the nonparty driver’s] negligence was the sole cause of this collision, this plaintiff cannot recover in this action. If, however, on the other hand, she has proven [defendant truck owner] was guilty of negligence, and that that negligence upon the part of the defendant either directly and proximately caused the collision, or directly and proximately contributed to cause the collision, then she is entitled to recover in this action.”
(Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 4, 104 N.E.2d at 6.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, and on appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, stating:
The trial judge did not submit to the jury the question whether the third person was guilty of negligence but charged . . . that the third person was, as a matter of law, guilty of negligence and that if the negligence of the third person so established was found by the jury to have been the sole cause of the collision, the defendant could not be held liable. The charge of the trial court we believe was free of error.
(Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 9, 104 N.E.2d at 8.
*59In the same vein, the Nebraska Supreme Court Committee on Civil Practice and Procedure suggests that the instruction on proximate cause, NJI2d Civ. 3.41; the instruction on concurring cause, NJI2d Civ. 3.42; and the instruction on the conduct of a nonparty third person as the sole and proximate cause, NJI2d Civ. 3.44, are sufficient instructions for the jury under these circumstances. I agree.
NJI2d Civ. 3.44 provides:
PROXIMATE CAUSE — CONDUCT OF NONPARTY THIRD PERSON
The defendant claims that [insert name of nonparty third person]’s conduct was the only proximate cause of the [accident]. By doing so, the defendant is simply denying that [his/her] conduct was a proximate cause of the [accident]. Remember, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the [accident].
Like the Schreiber instruction, NJI2d Civ. 3.44, when combined with the instructions on proximate cause and concurring cause, does not unduly emphasize the alleged negligence of either the defendant or a nonparty third person, but leaves the determination of proximate cause fairly in the hands of the jury. When reviewing the jury instructions in the instant case, that proper balance was lacking and adversely affected Tapp’s right to a fair trial.
With the foregoing in mind, I concur in the judgment.
White, C.J., and McCormack, J., join in this concurrence.