Court Opinion

ID: 9657090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:13:38.346697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:40.746580
License: Public Domain

Newton, J.,
dissenting.
The statutes of Nebraska mentioned in the majority opinion ¿render inapplicable to police vehicles engaged in the pursuit or apprehension of law violators the ordinary statutory rules regarding speed limits, stop signs, and right-of-way. Under such circumstances, the disregard or violation of such rules cannot be considered evidence of negligence, yet the court so instructed in instructions Nos. 12 and 15.
These ordinary traffic rules are completely irrelevant in cases such as this. The police vehicle, sounding its siren, may travel at any speed necessary, may disregard stop signs, and its driver may rely on his right to have the right-of-way, subject only to the provision that it be operated with due regard for the safety of others.
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the police vehicle was operated with due regard for the safety of others upon the highway. This proposition must be determined in the light of what a person of ordinary prudence would or would not have done under the same circumstances. It ordinarily presents an issue for the determination of the jury, but it is error to cloud the issue with an instruction that a violation of the inapplicable statutory rules of the road may be considered as evidence of negligence..
A high speed chase through city streets is always a hazardous project and the same rule of law should be *528applied as is used in other types of cases. The police are entitled to assume that their right-of-way will be respected unless and until they have knowledge to the contrary.
The rules adopted in the majority opinion have the effect of making the drivers of emergency vehicles insurers of all other travelers on the highway. The instructions given and approved establish the rule that such drivers may be considered negligent solely because they exceed the speed limit, run a stop sign or red light, or avail themselves of their statutory right-of-way. It is tantamount to saying that under such circumstances the driver of an emergency vehicle may always be found to be negligent.
In my judgment, the judgment in this case should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial under proper instructions.
Boslaugh, J., joins in this dissent.