Court Opinion

ID: 9733917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:20:21.433153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:44.495950
License: Public Domain

*510Grant, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I believe the questions of defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. Construing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, it shows that the defendant Resting was driving down a 25-foot-wide residential street with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Defendant was approaching the intersection of that street with another residential street at a speed of at least 45.5 miles per hour. This speed was calculated by the plaintiff’s expert witness and was based primarily on the fact that plaintiff was proceeding north and turning west when his car was struck by the defendant’s vehicle, proceeding south, with enough force to drive the plaintiff’s vehicle 55 feet back south and to allow the defendant’s truck to go through the collision point and end up at the southwest corner of the intersection. The fair inference to be drawn is that the defendant’s vehicle was proceeding at high speed.
The evidence shows that plaintiff did not see the defendant’s pickup truck. This would mean that plaintiff was negligent. It should be noted, however, that the driver behind plaintiff saw the impact and did not see defendant’s vehicle either.
I believe, in this posture of the case, the jury should have determined the comparative negligence of the two drivers. In view of the inference that could be drawn from the evidence that the defendant’s vehicle was proceeding at a rate of speed approximately twice the speed limit allowable, it should be a jury question to determine whether plaintiff’s failure to see defendant was more than slight when compared to defendant’s illegal speed in a residential area.
I think this case should be one of those “usually ... for the jury” as set out in Kremlacek v. Sedlacek, 190 Neb. 460, 465, 209 N.W.2d 149, 154 (1973), quoted in the majority opinion. It would certainly be a jury question if the defendant was driving 100 miles per hour down this narrow street. Defendant’s speed of approximately twice the speed limit is a matter of degree of his negligence. I think we should give no legal approbation to such speeds. I believe the matter should have been left to the jury to decide.
Rrivosha, C. J., joins in this dissent.