Court Opinion

ID: 9693335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:37:34.624327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:45.013035
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C.J.,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion which makes Bayne’s physical condition a per se defense. In doing so I believe we have redrafted the language of both Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1111 (Reissue 1978) and 49 C.F.R. § 391.41 (1978). It is not the absence of a digit which makes one ineligible to drive, but the driver’s inability to control and safely drive a vehicle because of the absence of a digit. That must, in each case, be a fact decision which in the first instance the employer should be required to investigate. The finders of fact in this case found that Bayne was not unable to safely operate a motor vehicle. We should not disturb that finding by making Bayne’s physical condition a per se defense.
I am authorized to state that White, J., joins in this dissent.