Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court committed plain error by failing to properly instruct the jury on the effects of allocating negligence as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.09. A verdict form could not substitute for the required jury instruction. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.09 by formally instructing the jury on the effects of its allocation of negligence.
- Whether a verdict form may substitute for the formal jury instruction required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.09.
- Whether the district court's failure to give the required instruction constituted plain error despite the parties' failure to object.
- Whether Stricker was entitled to a $5,000 credit against the judgment under the medical-payments provision of his automobile insurance policy and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1222.01.
Holdings
- A jury verdict form cannot substitute for the proper formal jury instruction explaining the effects of the allocation of negligence.
- Failure to instruct the jury on the effects of allocating negligence under § 25-21,185.09 constitutes plain error, even when no party objected to the instructions at trial.
Key quotations
“Based on our prior rulings and the plain meaning and purpose of § 25-21,185.09, we hold that a jury verdict form cannot serve as a substitute for the proper jury instruction as to the allocation of negligence.” (635 N.W.2d at 740)
“The Nebraska Legislature's enactment of § 25-21,185.09 created an obligation for courts to instruct juries on the effects of the allocation of negligence in every case where contributory negligence is a defense.” (635 N.W.2d at 742)
“Given the clear mandate of the Legislature and this court, it is the duty of a trial court to instruct the jury on the effects of the allocation of negligence under § 25-21,185.09, and failure to do so constitutes plain error.” (635 N.W.2d at 742)
Factual background
Stricker engaged in a speed contest with Swires in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, while Russell was a passenger in Stricker's truck. Stricker lost control of the truck, which struck a light pole, injuring Russell. The jury apportioned negligence among Russell, Stricker, and Swires and calculated Russell's recovery by reducing his total damages according to his own percentage of negligence.
Procedural history
A jury found Russell 36 percent negligent, Stricker 47 percent negligent, and Swires 17 percent negligent, and awarded total damages of $27,077, resulting in a judgment of $17,330. The district court denied Russell's motion for new trial and granted Stricker a $5,000 credit, reducing the judgment against Stricker to $12,330. Russell appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial based on plain error in the jury instructions.
Remand instructions
Remand for a new trial with a proper jury instruction explaining the effects of the allocation of negligence under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.09.