Court Opinion

ID: 9676473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:25:08.187057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:48.774410
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from that part of the majority opinion which holds that the jury should have been instructed that it could find that the defendant should have expected that the plaintiff would not discover or realize the danger or fail to protect herself against it.
The accident happened at around 2 or 2:30 in the afternoon *857on November 22, 1985. The plaintiff was returning to her station wagon to get the last layer of the cake she was delivering when she slipped on a small patch of ice and fell on the parking lot. When asked if she was looking where she was going as she came around, she answered: “I was looking at the side of the car, the door, I suppose, to go open the door.”
In my opinion there was no basis upon which the jury could find that the defendant should have anticipated that the plaintiff would not discover the ice on the parking lot or fail to protect herself against it. As we said in Syas v. Nebraska Methodist Hospital Foundation, 209 Neb. 201, 204, 307 N.W.2d 112, 115 (1981), “[TJhere is no evidence that the hospital should have expected Syas would not have discovered or realized the danger or would have failed to protect himself against it.”
At the close of the evidence, the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was overruled. In the cross-appeal portion of the defendant’s brief, it argues that the motion should have been sustained. I agree.