Pantano v. Am. Blue Ribbon Holdings, LLC, 927 N.W.2d 357

Arlene Pantano tripped and fractured her hip at a Village Inn restaurant; she and her husband sued the restaurant owner, American Blue Ribbon Holdings, LLC.
Both plaintiffs died before trial; their estates (copersonal representatives) continued the suit.
At a June 2018 jury trial, the jury awarded $245,000 to Arlene’s estate and $15,000 to Anthony’s estate, but found Arlene 25% negligent; district court entered judgment reduced to $195,000.
Arlene’s children testified that she said she tripped on a buckled entryway rug; the trial court admitted those statements over hearsay objections as excited utterances.
Testimony was admitted that a Village Inn employee said the restaurant would pay Arlene’s medical bills and that the bills ultimately were unpaid; the court gave a jury instruction (proposed by defendant) curing potential prejudice.
The estates moved to strike defendant’s comparative‑negligence defense; the district court nevertheless instructed the jury on comparative negligence and used a verdict form reflecting a 25% reduction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Arlene’s out‑of‑court statements	Statements were excited utterances and thus admissible	Statements were hearsay, not tied to a "startling event," made after stress subsided, and unreliable due to dementia	Admissible under excited‑utterance exception; declarant was under stress and dementia did not bar admission
Admission of statement/offered payment of medical bills	Evidence of offer and nonpayment was harmless with curative instruction	Evidence of offer/promised payment and nonpayment is inadmissible under §27‑409 and prejudicial	Admission was error but cured by jury instruction drafted by defendant; no reversible error
Sufficiency of evidence of defendant negligence	Plaintiff: testimony (Arlene’s excited utterances and other witness statements) supported negligence	Defendant argued insufficient evidence to establish negligence	Sufficient evidence supported liability; motions for SJ, directed verdict, JNOV, new trial properly denied
Comparative negligence instruction and verdict reduction	Plaintiff: no evidence Arlene was negligent; instruction and verdict form were improper	Defendant: Arlene’s age, dementia, health could support a finding of negligence	Court found no evidence of Arlene’s negligence; reversed reduction and modified judgment to full $260,000

Jacobs Engr. Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38, 917 N.W.2d 435 (discussing standard for reviewing jury verdicts)
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Nicholas Family, 299 Neb. 276, 908 N.W.2d 60 (hearsay/excited utterance principles)
State v. Nolt, 298 Neb. 910, 906 N.W.2d 309 (application of excited utterance rule)
Olson v. City of Omaha, 232 Neb. 428, 441 N.W.2d 149 (excited utterance factors)
McCune v. Neitzel, 235 Neb. 754, 457 N.W.2d 803 (procedural limits of motions in limine)
Molt v. Lindsay Mfg. Co., 248 Neb. 81, 532 N.W.2d 11 (jury instruction can cure evidentiary error)
Doe v. Zedek, 255 Neb. 963, 587 N.W.2d 885 (preservation of error and appellate review principles)
Burns v. Veterans of Foreign Wars, 231 Neb. 844, 438 N.W.2d 485 (negligence must be proven; not presumed)