Court Opinion

ID: 6662301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:03:04.994683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:00:12.766420
License: Public Domain

Sedgwick J.,
dissenting.
The majority opinion quotes the instruction given by the trial court submitting the question whether the negligence of plaintiff was slight. The instruction tells the jury that if plaintiff violated the orders and warnings of his employer, and in doing so “exposed himself to known dangers,” and that the “consequences” of disobeying orders and warnings when he knew the danger of so doing was the *680very injury he complains of, they might find that such conduct was slight negligence. • It seems to me that such conduct as is stated in this instruction amounts to recklessly and wilfully injuring himself. By this instruction the jury were permitted to find for the plaintiff, although satisfied from the conflicting evidence that the plaintiff had knowingly caused his own injury. For this peculiar holding, Disher v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 93 Neb. 224, is cited and quoted from, a case which arose before the statute we are now construing was enacted, and did not involve the questions here presented.
The majority opinion is to my mind a very incomplete and unsatisfactory discussion of the important questions presented in this case under the new statute which we are now called upon to construe.