Court Opinion

ID: 9585246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:58:16.302309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:54.302912
License: Public Domain

SCHLEGEL, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the trial court’s refusal to allow evidence of the time of the notification of the need for repair of the damaged pole. The majority assumes that the requirement for such notice would not have affected the accident. The delay may well have been evidence of negligence on-the part of Bell. It was not offered in order to show prejudice by immaterial facts.
I also believe there is sufficient evidence to submit the issue of Ott’s speed to the jury. In the state of the record, it is apparent that Ott felt concern for the height of the cable, when he stopped prior to his attempt to traverse the area. As it turned out, travelling at any speed, especially with his concern, was negligence. Ott looked at the situation (lookout), but having done so, should have pulled his unit up to the cable without travelling under it. Had he done so, the accident would not have happened. His negligence was proceeding at any speed under the circumstances he has shown to have known.
I would reverse as to Bell and as to Ott.