*1 cause with the judgment is remanded directions enter a opinion. with accordance
Reversed
remanded
with directions.
Authority
Circo,
appellee,
Edith
M.
Transit
of
City
doing
Omaha,
business
Metro
Area
Casualty
Surety
Transit,
appellant,
and Aetna
&
appellee.
Company,
corporation,
Filed June 1984. No. 83-406. Walsh, Walentine, Richard L. Miles, Walentine Fullenkamp O’Toole, & for Daly Sodoro,
Peter C. Bataillon of Sodoro, & for appellee Circo. C.J., Krivоsha, Boslaugh, Hastings, JJ.
Caporale, Shanahan, Grant, Krivosha, C.J. appellant, Authority City Transit of the doing Omaha, business as Metro Area Transit (MAT), appeals judgment from a entered thе dis- Douglas County, Nebraska, court trict which judg- found MAT liable for and awarded Circo, appellee, in the Edith M. in favor ment the trial $21,501.47. we believe Because amount re- law, we reverse a matter erred as court the action. to dismiss directions mand with April 21, 1981, *2 on discloses The evidence employment of Omaha Public Circo, in the while purpose operating Schools, van for the a was transporting to and from the Omaha Public children approximately a.m. Circo’s van was At Schools. by and driven its em- a bus owned MAT struck turning Larry ployee, Conner, Circo was left while Douglas Boulevard at the Omaha, Street from Turner onto intersection Douglas in streets
of those County, Nebraska. running way lanes one Boulevard has three
Turner southerly Douglas Street, direction, also a while in a one-way street, in has four lanes which run an east- erly Turner The intersection Boule- direction. Dоuglas is controlled a Street traffic vard light. operating which Circo was The van 10-passenger day question a It was van. had a longer ordinary passenger that of an than wheelbase slightly ordinary passenger car, wider than an was long. ap- car, was some feet As Circo Douglas, proached Turner the intersection of signal controlling thе traffic observed she stopped red, and she the van in the left Turner lane a the MAT anticipation making Turner Boulevard on Douglas. nearly At onto same time left turn being oрerated bus, which was then in a southerly Boulevard, on Turner direction arrived at The MAT bus also intended intersection. the make Douglas Street, left turn onto and either apprоaching up pulled Circo’s van or was beside in the middle lane on Turner Boulevard intersection green. light turned as the light green, on Turner Boulevard turned
As the oncoming that she chеcked testified traffic Circo right Douglas Street, her looked into her observing including mirror, and, traffic, no rearview began Douglas bus, the MAT her turn onto Street. length van, her Because she did not turn Douglas but, into the lane nearest rather, to her on Street portion into a line. second Circo testi- perceived turn, fied that as she initiated her she right vehicle, motion to the of her which was the turning MAT bus from the center lane of Turner Douglas third Boulevard into the or fourth lane of Street. Before Circo could discover the source and nearly motion, nature of the which was simultane- turn, ous with the start of her a collision occurred. Circo testified that she intended to turn into the sec- away Douglas lane ond from the north curb of Street length because the of the van made it difficult turn into the first lane. She also testified she did not just impact see the bus until before the occurred. prоbably She further testified that she did turn the to avoid the slightly the van front of
curb. appealed assigns has
MAT several errors. We only need, however, one; is, consider that whether failing guilty court erred in to find the tributory negligеnce Circo of con- recovery.
sufficient to bar her already indicated, As we have we believe the trial regard. court did err dispute there is some facts,
While аbout cer- dispute. material facts are tain without Those facts are that Circo knew that driving the van she was length of such that she was turn could not make a left by moving from her lane of traffic into the first Douglas recognized lane of traffic on that, Street. She negotiate turn, in order to it would be necessary beyond for her to move what would be of traffic normal lane for such a left turn and to into the second lane of travel traffic. With that knowledge knew, Circo or known, should have movement she was about to make the out of the was somewhat
ordinary required pay greater her to any may other traffic attention to which have then undisputed It is been the street. further [500] any if there was traffic im- not look to see
Circo did mediatеly might also on Turner which to her Douglas turning Street. It is left onto have been beyond dispute to her that had Circo looked clear right, have seen the bus. she would question that the drivеr of the MAT is no
There
negligent
he turned
in the manner
which
bus was
negligence,
Douglas. His
Turner onto
left from
question.
however,
end of the
We must
is not the
look
whether Circo’s failure to
determine
also
appropriate
it, and to take
bus and see
the MAT
contributory negligence
steps,
sufficient
constituted
right
recovery as a
her
matter
law.
bar
to
Contributory negligence
plain-
is conduct for which
amounting
duty
responsible,
a breach of the
to
tiff is
upon persons
protect
imposes
law
them-
which
injury,
concurring
which,
cо-
selves
negligence
part
operating with actionable
injury.
defendant,
See,
contributes
(1951);
Mundy Davis,
423,
154 Neb.
turning bus, no accident would have occurred. Zeiger Co-op Assn., 933, 936, v. Farmers 212 Neb. In 327 (1982), recently 43, 45 we said: “The looking look at a time when would have failure law, a matter of effective been holding in error in not so court was and in- “ jury.” structing ‘A motorist must see what is ” sight.’ plain Jacobsen, Burrows in 780, Neb. (1981). although And 311 N.W.2d one in position may assume, until he has a favored warn- knowledge contrary, *4 ing, notice, or that others lawfully, highway a he use must will nevertheless proper keep lookout and watch where he is driv- ing. See, McArdle, 382, v. 170 Nichols Neb. 102 (1960); Hayes Co., 848 v. Anderson Concrete N.W.2d (1971). Inc., 771, 186 477 186 Neb. N.W.2d
501 Murray Appliance Store, In v. Pearson 155 Neb. (1952), 860, 866, N.W.2d we said: “ ‘ required highway оf “Users the are to exercise must, care. reasonable What is reasonable care peculiar case, be each determined its own facts ” circumstances.”. . duty The driver of a motor vehicle has the keep proper lookout and is watch where he driving though rightfully high- even he is the way right-of-way driving and has the isor highway side where hе has a lawful keep to be. He must a lookout ahead or in the direction of travel or in the direction from which may expected approach be others and is road, bound to take notice of the to observe con- along way, ditions and to know what is in front of him for a reasonable distance.
Murray
Appliance
suprа
Store,
v. Pearson
at
Hongsermeier,
See, also,
255.
at
Kendall
(1984).
p. 109,
Having appeal thus of the basis, on any assignments not consider need of the other we judgment raised error is court reversed and the trial cause is remanded directions tо dismiss. with
Reversed and remanded with DIRECTIONS TO DISMISS. dissenting. J., disagree majority, I with the conclusion slightly negligent more than Circo was aas matter The issue considered and law. decided other- I trier faсt. am unable wise to conclude *5 clearly wrong. judge was the trial joins J., in this dissent.
Shanahan, appellee cross-appellant, W. Curtis, and Bobbie corporate 17, a No. District School Millard cross-appellee. appellant governmental body, No. 83-423. 1984. Filed June Daly Sodoro, Sodoro, & for McCann P. Shawn Huie, Kutak Rock & Kennison of W. Patrick appellee. C.J., Boslаugh, Hastings,
Krivosha, JJ. Shanahan, Grant, Caporale, J. Hastings, defendant, School District No. has Millard
The finding appealed district court an order of the contempt comply of court. It had failed to in be toit produce earlier order written court’s with narrative taken from witness to an acci- statement assignments error examine the status The dent. investigative taken statements insurance relating adjusters the rules under claims product privilege attorney-client and the work doc- cross-appeals, plaintiff-аppellee contend- trine. imposed insignificant were so ing sanctions totally inefficacious. be to petition, plaintiff’s According his minor son January partici- injured 6, 1981, whilе Paul mandatory physical education class pating held operated alleged the defendant. He school at damages injuries neg- resulted from the that ligence through agents defendant its