Pantano v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed a premises-liability judgment arising from Arlene Pantano’s fall at a Village Inn restaurant. The court held that statements describing the fall were admissible as excited utterances and that an instruction cured the improper admission of evidence concerning payment of medical expenses. On cross-appeal, the court held there was no evidence supporting Arlene’s comparative negligence and modified the judgment from $195,000 to $260,000.

Holdings

1. The statements were admissible under the excited-utterance exception because the fall was a startling event, the statements related to the event, and Arlene made them while still under the stress of the event.
2. Although testimony that a Village Inn employee said Arlene's medical expenses would be paid was admitted contrary to the statute governing offers to pay medical expenses, any error was cured by the jury instruction explaining that American Blue Ribbon had no duty to pay the expenses unless and until negligence or breach of duty was determined.
3. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that American Blue Ribbon was negligent, so the denials of the motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and new trial were proper.
4. American Blue Ribbon failed to preserve its evidentiary challenges because it did not object when the challenged evidence was offered at trial.
5. The denial of a motion for summary judgment was not a final order reviewable on appeal.
6. The district court erred in instructing the jury on comparative negligence and in providing a verdict form allowing a reduction for Arlene's negligence because American Blue Ribbon presented no evidence that Arlene was negligent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether statements Arlene made shortly after her fall were admissible under the excited-utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
2. Whether evidence that a Village Inn employee offered to pay Arlene's medical bills, together with evidence that the bills were not paid, required reversal despite a limiting jury instruction.
3. Whether the evidence supported the jury's finding that American Blue Ribbon was negligent and the denial of its motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and new trial.
4. Whether American Blue Ribbon preserved its challenges to the denial of its motions in limine.
5. Whether the denial of American Blue Ribbon's motion for summary judgment was reviewable on appeal.
6. Whether the evidence supported submitting comparative negligence to the jury and reducing the estates' judgment by 25 percent.

Disposition

affirmed