Court Opinion

ID: 9703837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:09:47.141924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:52.096965
License: Public Domain

Grant, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached in the opinion of the majority, but on the second ground discussed. I believe that defendant had a qualified, rather than an absolute, privilege in his actions which were undertaken in his employment as a road foreman with the Burlington Northern railroad. Hall v. Rice, 117 Neb. 813, 223 N.W. 4 (1929); Dangbergv. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 198 Neb. 234, 252 N.W.2d 168 (1977). Since defendant had such a qualified privilege, but the evidence showed, as a matter of law, that defendant was not guilty of malice toward plaintiff, I would affirm on that ground.