Court Opinion

ID: 9698901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:03:23.545547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:44.464691
License: Public Domain

BIEGELMEIER, Judge
(dissenting in part).
Some of the original opinion dealt with defendant’s negligence, the status of Mrs. Miller as invitee, assumption of risk and contributory negligence as to whether her husband chose the wrong route of travel around the shopping center on undisputed facts, and as to these it remains a guide to the trial court. In connection with the last point defendant’s brief claimed Mrs. Miller was contributorily negligent because she failed to observe or protest his manner of driving. It is on this we differ on rehearing, an issue on which the evidence was not thoroughly developed at the trial. While I still believe that evidence was not of the quality here to submit that question to the jury, I recognize the evidence thereon may, and probably will, differ on retrial. It does not appear who had the food purchased or whether Mrs. Miller had *136it in her care which would, engage her attention at least part of the time while her husband drove the pickup. Because of that I agree with Judge Roberts that comment as to her contributory negligence was unnecessary to either the original or the one on rehearing.