Court Opinion

ID: 9688628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:58:51.042795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:40.721007
License: Public Domain

*299Wenke, J., dissenting.
I dissent from the majority’s holding that the only permissible conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that plaintiff’s decedent was guilty of such negligence as to defeat plaintiff’s right to recover.
The rule applicable in that regard is stated in Bishop v. Schofield, 156 Neb. 830, 58 N. W. 2d 207, as follows: “If the evidence is undisputed, or such that minds of men could not reasonably arrive at any other conclusion, the question is one for.decision by the court as a matter of law; otherwise, it is a question for the jury to decide as other issuable facts in the case.”
In considering the record the majority opinion correctly states the rule applicable as follows: “In such examination the plaintiff is entitled to have treated' as true all competent evidence submitted on her behalf, is entitled to have every fact controverted by evidence resqlved in her favor, and is entitled to have resolved in her favor the benefit of every inference which can reasonably be deduced from the evidence.”
From the evidence adduced I think a jury could find as follows: That the road where the accident took place was graded and had a traveling surface which was about 20 feet in width; that on the day of the accident it was covered with packed snow, which was slick, thus making the surface very slippery; that generally travel had been in the center of the graded surface, although the full width thereof could be used for that purpose; that plaintiff’s decedent was traveling north toward the-crest of a hill; that he was traveling in the center portion of the road; that the defendant was traveling south on this same road and also occupying the center portion thereof; that defendant observed decedent’s car when he came over the crest of the hill; that decedent’s car was then about 100 feet away; that defendant was traveling at a speed somewhere between 35 and 40 miles an hour; that he did not have chains on his car; that his car was in overdrive; that as defendant’s car came over *300the hill decedent, who had chains on his car, turned his car to the right or east portion of the traveled surface of the road; that he did so after defendant’s car had come over the crest of the hill and started down the south side; that after coming over the crest of the hill and seeing decedent’s car defendant applied his brakes but was unable to stop his car; that defendant also tried to turn his car to the right, or onto the west side of the traveled portion of the road, but was unable to do so; that just before defendant’s car reached decedent’s car the defendant’s car slid or skidded to the left or east portion of the road; that as a result of doing so it crashed head-on into the front end of decedent’s car; and that the collision took place east of the center of the traveled portion of the road and some 40 to 50 feet south of the crest of the hill.
■ As a result of the collision the defendant’s car came to an abrupt stop but decedent’s car was driven back to the southwest some 25 to 30 feet. How the cars traveled, immediately before and after the accident, and the direction they took is fully evidenced by the tracks of-their tires in the snow, which are shown by pictures introduced which show their position immediately following the collision, and by witnesses who testified in regard thereto. Where the collisio.n took place is further evidenced by where the debris from the cars laid on the highway and where the antifreeze spilled out and stained the snow.
■ I have not overlooked the fact that defendant testified the collision occurred in the center of the road and that this fact is corroborated by another witness. If that is true then I would agree that plaintiff should not recover as decedent would then have been guilty of such negligence as to defeat his right to recover. On the other hand, if decedent turned his car to the right and onto the east half of the road I cannot see how he could then be guilty of such negligence as to defeat plaintiff’s right to recover for that is certainly all that any ordi*301narily prudent man could or should be expected to do. It certainly was not his duty to anticipate that defendant would not be able to control his car. To me the record presents a question of fact for the jury and not one of law for the court. In my judgment the trial court was correct in submitting it to the jury.
Chappell, J., joins in this dissent.