 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Boesiger v. Huber12/16/2003
structions to visibility and that the closest obstruction was several feet northwest of a post near the intersection. A jury could have found that the intersection was not a blind one, but only partially so. A jury could have found that either driver could see down the road, where another vehicle was likely to be coming, for a significant distance. In short, the jury could have found facts which would have made the teaching of Schenk v. Yosten, 229 Neb. 691, 428 N.W.2d 510 (1988), applicable, i.e., that regardless of the degree of obstruction, a driver must approach an intersection with that degree of care which will permit the driver to make a reasonably careful observation of the obstructed section of the road and, if required, to take reasonable action to prevent a collision. Huber testified that he saw Boesiger and that she was not looking for approaching vehicles. Boesiger did not testify that she looked. She testified that she did not remember slowing down and that she did not apply her brakes. A jury could have found that Boesiger was driving too fast, that she did not keep a reasonable lookout, that she should have slowed and did not, and, hence, that she was negligent to some degree.
CONCLUSION
We therefore conclude that under the evidence, the district court erred in entering a directed verdict and in not submitting the issue of Boesiger's negligence to the jury. Whether Boesiger was negligent and, if so, the comparison of both parties' negligence should have been determined by the jury. We therefore reverse, and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
|