Court Opinion

ID: 9723364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:12:42.265522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:47.643772
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
The District Court not only dismissed plaintiff’s cause *82of action, it also directed a verdict against the plaintiff as to liability on defendant Siekman’s counterclaim for damages to his automobile, and the jury assessed his damages at $1,154. This court has now affirmed that judgment. For all practical purposes, this court has held that it is negligence as a matter of law to ride a horse at dusk on a highway bounded by guardrails, even though the horse is well-trained, not fractious, and is fully accustomed to vehicular traffic. Such a holding is wholly unsupported under the facts here and is in direct conflict with Guynan v. Olson, 178 Neb. 335, 133 N. W. 2d 571. The holding in this case will no doubt come as a rude surprise to many a cowboy, real or rhinestone.
There were ample issues which should have gone to the jury on both causes of action. There was serious factual conflict as to the extent of the dusk or darkness. There was the clear issue of the failure of the defendant Siekman to stop within the range of his vision. Any assessment of comparative negligence between the plaintiff and the defendant obviously required an assessment of the factual issues. The case should have been submitted to the jury.