Court Opinion

ID: 9689437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:31:47.643895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:05.781057
License: Public Domain

White, C.J.,
dissenting.
In finding that a pedestrian bears alone the burden for her safety while crossing the street, even if she is clearly visible to motorists, the majority transforms the “range of vision” rule into a “fair game” rule. While Pittman undoubtedly was contributorily negligent, she is entitled to a fair consideration of the degree of her negligence without the presence of non-issues clouding the jury’s judgment.
Under the range of vision rule, a motorist is deemed negligent as a matter of law if he or she operates a motor vehicle in such a manner as to be unable to stop or turn aside without colliding with an object in the motorist’s path within his *695or her range of vision. Nickell v. Russell, 247 Neb. 112, 525 N.W.2d 203 (1995). We have found exceptions to the range of vision rule where the motorist could not have seen the struck object or person. An exception to the range of vision rule exists when a motorist, otherwise exercising reasonable care, does not see an object sufficiently in advance to avoid a collision because the object is relatively indiscernible because its color is similar to the surface of the street or highway, and it is thereby indistinguishable from the surface. See id. The applicability of this exception turns on the objective visibility of the object, rather than on the reasonableness (or unreasonableness) of the motorist’s conduct. See Bartosh v. Schlautman, 181 Neb. 130, 147 N.W.2d 492 (1966).
We have often found this exception applicable or declined to apply the range of vision rule at all for collisions occurring at night, because the motorist’s range of vision is necessarily truncated. Where the object struck in such collisions is human, the greater onus is on the pedestrian to look out for his or her own safety at night. In Hrabik v. Gottsch, 198 Neb. 86, 251 N.W.2d 672 (1977), we affirmed an order sustaining a motion to dismiss in favor of a motorist in a nighttime collision that occurred when a pedestrian was crossing an unlit roadway, where the evidence was uncontroverted that the pedestrian had not looked for vehicles before stepping into the path of the motorist. Similarly, in Hennings v. Schufeldt, 222 Neb. 416, 384 N.W.2d 274 (1986), we affirmed an order directing a verdict for a motorcyclist who had struck an elderly pedestrian on a dark and rainy night, where it was clear that the pedestrian had failed to keep any sort of a lookout for his safety. See, also, Heeney v. Churchill, 154 Neb. 848, 50 N.W.2d 72 (1951) (rejecting range of vision rule on grounds that motorist could not have seen pedestrian, where pedestrian wore dark clothing and collision occurred at night).
This exception does not apply in this case. Swanson was driving in daylight and clear weather, and Pittman was not wearing clothing that would camouflage her against the road surface. Pittman did not suddenly dart out from between parked cars, but, rather, walked across several lanes of traffic before Swanson struck her in the lane farthest from her depar*696ture point. Swanson did not indicate that his range of vision was truncated or blocked by any obstruction. Although Swanson’s trial counsel argues that Steimer’s vehicle must have blocked Swanson’s view of the street, Swanson himself remembers no obstructions to his vision at all. Although Swanson stated that his normal practice when driving is to scan the road in front of him, he also stated that he does not know why he failed to see Pittman before he struck her.
Whether Pittman should not have been in Swanson’s lane of traffic at that time simply is not germane to the range of vision rule. The range of vision rule does not ask whether the driver actually saw an object before colliding with it; such an interpretation negates the rule altogether, allowing any motorist to escape liability as a matter of law merely by stating that he or she did not see the unfortunate object. Rather, the range of vision rule asks only whether the driver could have seen an object in time to avoid colliding with it. See Prime Inc. v. Younglove Constr. Co., 227 Neb. 423, 418 N.W.2d 539 (1988). As the record contains no evidence at all that Swanson could not have seen Pittman in time to stop or swerve away, the only reasonable conclusion is that Swanson was negligent as a matter of law. The majority should have found that German deserved a directed verdict on the issue of Swanson’s negligence.
The majority states that no error resulted from the failure of the trial court to direct a verdict on liability, because Pittman was contributorily negligent. This assertion overlooks the fact that the jury was instructed to consider not only whether Pittman was so negligent as to preclude recovery, but also whether the questions of duty, breach, causation, and harm were proved as to Swanson’s negligence in the first place. The jury returned a general verdict and did not answer any special interrogatories as to whether its verdict turned on a failure to find negligence or on a finding of gross contributory negligence. Nor did the verdict form ask whether, if the jury found Pittman contributorily negligent, such contributory negligence was slight or gross. If the jury’s verdict turned on a finding that Swanson was not negligent — that is, a finding *697contrary to the range of vision rule of law — then prejudice did indeed result from the failure to direct a verdict.
A party’s right to a fair trial may be substantially impaired by jury instructions that contain inconsistencies or confuse or mislead the jury. Hamernick v. Essex Dodge Ltd., 247 Neb. 392, 527 N.W.2d 196 (1995). Thus, a trial court must eliminate all matters not in dispute and submit to the jury only the controverted questions of fact upon which the verdict must depend. Long v. Hacker, 246 Neb. 547, 520 N.W.2d 195 (1994). It is more than mere probability that an instruction on a matter not an issue in the litigation distracts a jury in its effort to answer legitimate, factual questions raised during trial. Id. Submission of an issue on which the evidence is insufficient to sustain an affirmative finding is generally prejudicial and results in a new trial. Kudlacek v. Fiat S.p.A., 244 Neb. 822, 509 N.W.2d 603 (1994); Vredeveld v. Clark, 244 Neb. 46, 504 N.W.2d 292 (1993).
Under a proper reading of the range of vision rule, Swanson’s negligence was not a jury issue. The trial court should not have allowed it to interfere with the jury’s consideration of the real issues in this case. I cannot assent to the majority’s acceptance of this error.
Lanphier, J., joins in this dissent.