Court Opinion

ID: 9618767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:16:55.170562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:02.417655
License: Public Domain

Bussey, Justice
(concurring).
While I agree with the result reached in the opinion of the Chief Justice, I would affirm the judgment of the lower court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 4, Sec. 8, on the simple ground that there is, in my view, no evidence contained in the record of any actionable negligence on the part of the respondent. There being no. proof of any negligence, it is unnecessary to consider any issue of proximate cause or intervening or superseding cause. There being no evidence whatever that Sec. 46-491 was violated by the re*165spondent, the court, in my view, should refrain from passing on the effect of any violation thereof, particularly since such is a question of novel impression in this state. A review of authorities from many other jurisdictions will show that there is a decided split of authority as to whether, and under what circumstances, a violation of similar statutes may, or may not, be held a proximate cause of injuries or damages inflicted by an unlocked motor vehicle following its removal by a thief, drunk or other intermeddler. See generally 51 A. L. R. (2d) 633; 91 A. L. R. (2d) 1326; Prosser on Torts, (3d) Ed. 323, Sec. 51.