McClure v. Forsman, 266 Neb. 90

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a defense verdict in a negligence action arising from a vehicle accident allegedly caused by irrigation water sprayed onto a public roadway. The court held that disputed evidence concerning the defendants' knowledge of the roadway's wet condition precluded directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It also upheld the jury instructions concerning the defendants' guilty plea for violating the applicable statute and declined to address the appellees' cross-appeal.

Holdings

1. The district court properly denied the motions because the evidence disputed whether the roadway was frequently wet and whether the appellees knew or should have known of the dangerous condition; reasonable minds could therefore reach more than one conclusion.
2. The district court properly refused the requested instruction because the statutory violation was undisputed, making a burden-shifting instruction unwarranted by the evidence and potentially confusing to the jury.
3. The district court's instruction No. 18 did not constitute plain error because McClure did not object, the instruction was generally based on the applicable pattern instruction, any deviation was favorable to McClure, and she was not prejudiced.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in denying McClure's motion for a directed verdict and her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, a new trial.
2. Whether the district court erred by refusing McClure's requested jury instruction stating that Forsman's guilty plea shifted the burden to him to prove facts taking him outside the scope of Nebraska Revised Statute § 39-301.
3. Whether the district court committed plain error by giving jury instruction No. 18 concerning Forsman's guilty plea and statutory violation.
4. Whether the district court erred in refusing the appellees' requested instruction on McClure's contributory negligence.

Disposition

affirmed