Court Opinion

ID: 9692303
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:51:01.1089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:33.983658
License: Public Domain

Rogosheske, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the majority’s construction of the questioned clause to the effect that plaintiff’s compliance with that cause does not preclude any departure from the home if such departure is for medical and therapeutic reasons under the advice of the attending physician.
However, I disagree that this construction supports a reinstatement of the jury verdict for plaintiff. There remains the question of whether the departures established by the evidence were in fact medi*39cal requirements. This is a question of fact to be decided by the jury unless the evidence, and all reasonable inferences therefrom as viewed most favorably to the defendant, established that every departure and all attendant conduct of the plaintiff beyond the confines of the home were therapeutically required.
The posttrial decision of the trial court does not make clear to me whether this fact issue was determined by application of the rule of “literal” construction or the rule of “broad” construction which we agree is the better rule. The order granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict could have been made because the trial court required a literal compliance with the questioned clause as urged by the dissent even though it is declared to be based upon a nonsubstantial compliance as a matter of law.
In any event, even though neither argued nor urged by the parties, justice would seem to require a new trial so that the issue of fact could be resubmitted in the light of our construction; and if the reasons for the admitted departures are disputed — as I believe the record indicates — , the issue should be submitted to the jury under appropriate instructions emphasizing not “substantial compliance” but the reasons for the admitted departures.