Court Opinion

ID: 9707829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:22:40.771565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:38.625902
License: Public Domain

Lanphier, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the dissent of Justice White. However, I write separately because I wish to add that I believe the majority failed to give Richardson the benefit of the reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence as required by precedent. It is well settled that upon review of a motion for directed verdict, the party against whom the motion is made is entitled to have every controverted fact resolved in his or her favor and to have the benefit of every inference which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence. See Lindsay Mfg. Co. v. Universal Surety Co., 246 Neb. 495, 519 N.W.2d 530 (1994). Since Phil’s Foodway made the motion for a directed verdict, Richardson is entitled to have the benefit of every reasonable inference.
Richardson adduced evidence showing that there had been a problem at Phil’s Foodway with people intentionally breaking or spilling items on the floor. There was evidence that a large amount of liquid soap, readily visible to the assistant store manager, was present on the floor of the store. The evidence *138showed that Phil’s Foodway had no written safety program. Additionally, the evidence showed that the management could not determine precisely when or who had last mopped the floor of Phil’s Foodway. The reasonable inference deducible from this evidence is that had Phil’s Foodway exercised reasonable care, the dangerous condition would have been discovered. Because the majority failed to give Richardson the benefit of this inference and follow well-established rules concerning the standard of review of a motion for a directed verdict, I respectfully dissent.
White, J., joins in this dissent.