Court Opinion

ID: 9742569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:16:09.887943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:33.805735
License: Public Domain

S'pencer,- J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion herein because I believe the negligence of the plaintiff was ■more than slight when compared with the negligence of defendant’s driver and a verdict should have been directed for the defendant.
It is undisputed that the collision occurred,. 140 feet west of the crest of the hill. The undisputed evidence is that both cars were across the centerline at the time of impact. There were 140 feet of skid marks behind the Tichota car, but none behind the car of the plaintiff. Plaintiff and his group were hunting coyotes. It is apparent he was paying no attention to traffic and therefore did not see the skidding Tichota car as he approached the point of the impact. The absence of skid marks and the fact that his car was across the centerline conclusively indicates he was not keeping a proper lookout.
This case is not. too different from Buick v. Stoehr (1961), 172 Neb. 629, 111 N. W. 2d 391, where both cars were over the center of the road. In that case we said: “In an action based on negligence to which the comparative negligence rule has application wherein the evidence shows beyond reasonable dispute that the plaintiff’s negligence was more than slight in comparison with that of the defendant the action should be dismissed or a verdict directed.”