 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Haghighi v. State8/27/2002
on a barricade failed to activate when he tested it by draping a firefighter's coat over it. Thus, there was evidence that the lights may not have been functioning as intended, but the lights used would not have been on at the time of the accident in any event because it was daylight.
The court did not give a specific instruction about the lights, but, rather, instructed the jury that Virginia claimed that United and All Road were negligent " n erecting and maintaining signs, barricades, lights, and pavement markings in such a manner as to confuse or disorient motorists traveling around and through the construction site." Thus, the matter of whether the lights were proper was clearly before the jury for its consideration.
Moreover, all the jury instructions must be read together, and if, taken as a whole, they correctly state the law, are not misleading, and adequately cover the issues supported by the pleadings and the evidence, there is no prejudicial error necessitating a reversal. Sedlak Aerial Spray v. Miller, 251 Neb. 45, 555 N.W.2d 32 (1996); Fales v. Books, 5 Neb. App. 372, 558 N.W.2d 831 (1997). The trial court's broad instruction on signage and lights certainly includes Virginia's allegation that United and All Road failed to equip the barricades with lights which should have been operating at the time of the accident. The instruction encompasses Virginia's allegation that the lights on the barricades were not the proper type of light and did not function as would be expected at the time of the accident. Therefore, we conclude that this assignment of error is without merit.
CONCLUSION
We have considered the entire record in light of the assignments of error and find no error. Thus, we affirm the jury's verdict for United and All Road, as well as the court's order finding for the State and dismissing Virginia's amended petition. Affirmed.
|