King v. Crowell Memorial Home

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed a directed verdict for Crowell Memorial Home in a negligence action arising from the death of a nursing-home resident. The court held that the plaintiff failed to present trial evidence establishing that the Home's alleged failure to resuscitate the decedent proximately caused her death, and it declined to consider several other assignments of error because they were unpreserved, nonprejudicial, or unnecessary to the disposition.

Holdings

1. No. Because the motion in limine was overruled and King suffered no prejudice, any error concerning consideration of the motion or preservation of the hearing record provided no basis for appellate relief.
2. No. Any error in restricting King's voir dire or opening statement was not prejudicial because the judgment resulted from a directed verdict rather than a jury determination, and opening statements are not evidence.
3. No. The court would not consider King's substantive due process challenge because it was not presented to the district court.
4. Yes. The directed verdict was proper because King presented no evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that the home's failure to resuscitate proximately caused the decedent's death.
5. No. Evidence offered or received during summary judgment proceedings but not offered at trial cannot be considered in determining whether the trial evidence was sufficient to preclude a directed verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court's handling of the home's motion in limine and failure to preserve a record of the related hearing constituted reversible error.
2. Whether restrictions on the use of power-of-attorney and resuscitation issues during voir dire and opening statements constituted reversible error.
3. Whether the constitutional challenge to the Nebraska Health Care Power of Attorney statutes was properly preserved for appellate review.
4. Whether the district court properly granted a directed verdict because King failed to present evidence that any act or omission by the home proximately caused the decedent's death.
5. Whether the district court's exclusion of exhibits concerning powers of attorney and King's instruction regarding medical measures required reversal.

Disposition

affirmed