Court Opinion

ID: 9697196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:08:28.613913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:29.879836
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
This case was tried in the District Court on appeal from the municipal court de novo on the record. In such cases the judgment of the District Court on the facts will not be set aside if there is sufficient competent evidence to support it. Fauss Constr., Inc. v. City of Hooper, 197 Neb. 398, 249 N. W. 2d 478.
In the present case the damage to plaintiff’s vehicle was stipulated to be $1,493.78. The District Court judgment for the plaintiff was for $1,195, a reduction of 20 percent almost to the penny, from the stipulated amount of damage. It is obvious that the District Court applied the comparative negligence rule and determined, as the fact finder, that the plaintiff’s negligence, in comparison to the defendant driver’s negligence, was slight and, therefore, properly reduced the award.
This court now finds that the determination by the fact finder on the facts in this case was clearly wrong; that there was no evidence to support it; and that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff was guilty of negligence more than slight in comparison to that of the defendant driver.
The majority opinion does so solely on the authority of Hodgson v. Gladem, 187 Neb. 736, 193 N. W. 2d *465779. There are critical factual differences between the two cases. In Hodgson the plaintiff and the defendant were each traveling about 45 miles per hour. In the case now before the court the cars were traveling at 25 miles per hour. In Hodgson the plaintiff did not seé the defendant’s vehicle until an instant before the collision. In the present case the plaintiff saw the defendants’ vehicle when it was still 30 or 40 feet away from the intersection. In Hodgson the plaintiff did not apply his brakes before the collision. In the case before us the plaintiff applied his brakes and left skidmarks of 50 feet 8 inches before the impact. In Hodgson the defendant saw the plaintiff’s vehicle when he was 30 feet away and the defendant’s vehicle left 15 feet of skidmarks. In the case before us the defendant driver did not see the plaintiff’s automobile until an instant before the collision occurred, and there was no evidence of any skid-marks behind defendants’ car. In Hodgson the defendant’s vehicle struck the plaintiff’s car on the left side. In the present case the plaintiff’s car struck the right-hand door of the defendants’ vehicle.
On the basis of such divergent facts the majority opinion here now holds that a plaintiff with the right-of-way at a blind county intersection, who is traveling at a speed of 25 miles per hour, and who applies his brakes and skids for over 50 feet, was traveling at such a speed that it gave him no opportunity at all to observe and act appropriately, and that he is guilty of negligence more than slight as a matter of law in comparison to the negligence of a defendant traveling at the same speed who failed to yield the right-of-way, and never even saw the plaintiff until the moment of impact. For all practical purposes the court now holds that at a “blind” intersection a plaintiff with the right-of-way who is unable to stop before a collision is guilty of negligence more than slight as a matter of law. Such a holding destroys the comparative negligence rule and makes direc*466tional right-of-way rules meaningless.
The District Court necessarily determined that both parties were negligent on the facts here, but it also obviously determined that plaintiff’s negligence was slight in comparison to the defendant driver’s negligence. Those factual determinations are supported on the record. Where reasonable minds might differ on issues of comparative negligence, just as on issues of negligence, the matter should be for the fact finder to determine. The judgment of the District Court here should be affirmed.
White, C. J., joins in this dissent.