Court Opinion

ID: 9671197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:32:42.565083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:08.611014
License: Public Domain

Smith, J'.,
dissenting.
The circumstantial evidence rule stated in the second syllabus of Norcross v. Gingery, 181 Neb. 783, 150 N. W. 2d 919 (1967), is either misleading or incorrect. See Wolstenholm v. Kaliff, 176 Neb. 358, 366, 126 N. W. 2d 178, 183 (1964), (White, C. J., concurring).
Taylor’s testimony to causation touched an ultimate iaet, but there I see no reason for an exclusionary ruling. The testimony, however, was conjectural. Furthermore, assuming arguendo the existence of a factual issue of causation, I think the testimony was superflu*446ous. “ ‘. . . whenever the point is reached at which the tribunal is being told that which it is itself entirely equipped to determine without the witness’ aid . . ., his testimony is superfluous . . ..’ ” Sears v. Mid-City Motors, Inc., 179 Neb. 100, 136 N. W. 2d 428 (1965).
I otherwise concur with the dissenting opinion by Boslaugh, J.