Court Opinion

ID: 9743829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:45:34.35866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:44.277817
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in all but part IV, about which I dissent. A driver has some responsibility to take reasonable precaution for her own safety during a storm and some duty to take cognizance of her surroundings. In Part IV, the Court says Eskew had no duty and that because she testified that she didn't appreciate the danger, she cannot be negligent as a matter of law and thus no instruction on comparative fault was warranted. I think both Eskew and Valinet had a duty of reasonable care and they should both tell their story to the jury.