 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jordan v. Neff12/28/2001
rred in refusing to determine as a matter of law that Neff's conduct was negligent. She argues the jury should not have been given the option to decide whether he was at fault at all. Rather, she believes the finding that Neff was not at fault simply is not supported by any evidence and requests a new trial. We disagree.
Again, based on the evidence produced at trial and viewed in a light most favorable to Neff, a reasonable jury could have determined Neff was not negligent in regard to Jordan's collision with his vehicle. Neff testified that he looked in his mirror and saw nothing. He also disputed Jordan's claim that he came to a stop in the portion of the road in which she was traveling. It is undisputed that Jordan's vehicle struck Neff's vehicle in the rear.
The facts also support a conclusion Jordan's negligence alone may have caused the accident. The jury may have concluded Jordan was negligent in following too closely to the vehicle in front of her, initially Warner's, and then Neff's following his lane change, particularly considering the weather conditions. Investigating officer Mark Hewlett testified that after the accident Jordan admitted she could not stop in time due to the wet conditions of the road. Also, Jordan admitted she never saw the Neff vehicle until after the Warner vehicle went off the road. The jury could have determined her failure to keep a lookout caused the accident. The court did not err in failing to grant the motion for directed verdict.
IV. Conclusion.
We conclude the district court did not err in refusing to grant Jordan's motion for summary judgment and her motion for directed verdict. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
|