Court Opinion

ID: 9851112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:07:29.300288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:48.894788
License: Public Domain

White, C. Thomas, J.,
dissenting.
The doctrine of momentary inattention is now extended to justify the direction of a verdict on the following facts:
(1) On a clear open highway with a slight curve, a host driver operates his car 468 feet on the shoulder of a highway, comes back upon and then across the right-hand lane, into the left-hand lane, and impacts with a bridge abutment on the left-hand side.
(2) After the collision, the car travels through the air 69 feet, strikes the ground, travels another 36 feet through the air, and lands and either rolls or travels through the air another 31 feet.
(3) The engine of the car is totally torn from the car, lying 3 to 4 feet from the car. The car is demolished.
A jury could easily find from the circumstances recited the following acts of negligence: (1) Unreasonable speed under the circumstances; (2) failure to exercise a proper lookout; and (3) failure to have the vehicle under proper control.
The defendant, called as a hostile witness by the plaintiff, admitted that in his answers to interrogatories he stated his expert witness would testify the speed of defendant’s automobile could not have exceeded 64.1 miles per hour, another act which, if the cause had been submitted, would support a finding of negligence.
The several acts of negligence alleged, when considered together, would fairly support a finding of gross negligence had the cause been submitted. See Demont v. Mattson, 188 Neb. 277, 196 N. W. 2d 190.
In view of the decision of the majority opinion, the *668discussion relating to the physician-patient privilege is unnecessary and dicta.
There was no adequate offer of proof in the trial court. The plaintiff merely offered to prove the percent by weight of alcohol in the blood and did not offer to prove by suitable expert testimony the effect thereof. Raskey v. Hulewicz, 185 Neb. 608, 177 N. W. 2d 744.
“If evidence would be relevant in conjunction with other facts not yet in the record, the offer should be accompanied by an offer to prove those facts at the proper time.” 88 C. J. S., Trial, § 80, p. 185. See, also, McCormick on Evidence, § 51, p. 109 (2d Ed., 1972).
The issue of admissibility of the blood alcohol test results is not properly before us and should not have been considered.
McCown and Clinton, JJ., join in this dissent.