Court Opinion

ID: 9543310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:44:15.198078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:08.079019
License: Public Domain

Donworth, J.
(concurring in the result)—The majority opinion states that it is unnecessary to consider whether respondent was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law because it holds that appellant was entitled to the defense of governmental immunity because its acts were performed in the exercise of a governmental function.
In my view, appellant’s motion to dismiss at the close of respondent’s evidence plainly should have been granted because of respondent’s own negligence (described in the majority opinion) which, as a matter of law, barred his recovery. Therefore, I see no need for us to consider the defense of governmental immunity.
Accordingly, I concur in the reversal of the judgment and the dismissal of respondent’s action.
Weaver, J., concurs with Donworth, J.