Hirschman v. Maddox, 85-170
| Decision Date | 27 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-170,85-170 |
| Citation | 389 N.W.2d 297,223 Neb. 302 |
| Parties | Robert HIRSCHMAN, Appellant, v. Kevin MADDOX, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Summary Judgment. A party is entitled to summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, that the ultimate inferences to be drawn from those facts are clear, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
2. Summary Judgment. We are required to view the evidence most favorably to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is directed, giving to that party the benefit of all the favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.
Thomas L. Kovanda of Anderson, Vipperman, Hinman, Hall & Kovanda, Grand Island, for appellant.
D. Steven Leininger of Luebs, Dowding, Beltzer, Leininger, Smith & Busick, Grand Island, for appellee.
This is an action brought by plaintiff-appellant, Robert Hirschman, against the defendant-appellee, Kevin Maddox, for damages as a result of a farm accident that occurred when Hirschman was employed as a farmhand by Maddox. Hirschman asserted that Maddox was negligent in failing to warn Hirschman, to supervise him, and to provide him a safe place to work. Maddox answered that Hirschman's negligence barred his recovery and that he assumed the risk of his actions. The court granted Maddox's motion for summary judgment and overruled a motion for a new trial. This appeal followed.
Hirschman assigns three errors which may be summarized as the district court erred in granting summary judgment because there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to the negligence of the parties and the appellant's assumption of risk.
The facts are as follows. Hirschman was employed as a common farmhand or laborer by Maddox on July 25, 1983. Hirschman was born and raised on a farm, helped his father with farming while growing up, has driven a tractor since he was 9 years old, and considers himself an experienced farmer. He performed general farmwork for Maddox and did so without being personally supervised by Maddox. A few days before the accident, Hirschman devised a method of towing a three-wheeled motorcycle used for getting around between fields behind a disk, which was in turn towed by a tractor. After successfully using this method to tow the motorcycle, Hirschman informed Maddox of what he had done and showed him the method he had used. Maddox expressed approval, but suggested that Hirschman use rubber tarp straps instead of baling wire to attach the motorcycle to the disk because the wire scratched the paint on the motorcycle.
The next workday Hirschman, who had used tarp straps many times and was familiar with their characteristics, selected straps in lengths he felt were appropriate for the towing arrangement. He testified in his deposition that he was aware that the straps were made of rubber and that they would snap back like a rubberband after being stretched and released. He further testified that his concern that the straps might snap back and hit him caused him to handle them carefully when he attached the motorcycle to the disk. While he was towing the disk and the motorcycle, the motorcycle came into contact with the disk in such a manner that further movement would have caused damage to the machinery. Hirschman tried to reposition the motorcycle, which required adjusting the rubber strap which was under tension. The strap snapped free...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. Kane
...of a simple implement was error. Thus, the question of whether Kane had a duty to warn Hawkins remains. The case Hirschman v. Maddox, 223 Neb. 302, 389 N.W.2d 297 (1986), is particularly relevant, though clearly distinguishable from the instant case. In Hirschman, the plaintiff, a farmhand,......
-
Krajewski v. Enderes Tool Co., Inc.
...Mandery v. Chronicle Broad. Co., 228 Neb. 391, 423 N.W.2d 115, 120 (Neb.1988); Rahmig, 412 N.W.2d at 74; Hirschman v. Maddox, 223 Neb. 302, 389 N.W.2d 297, 299-300 (Neb. 1986); Waegli v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 197 Neb. 824, 251 N.W.2d 370, 372 (Neb. 1977). Assumption of risk ordinarily is......
-
White v. Ardan, Inc.
...is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, County of Polk v. Wombacher, 229 Neb. 239, 426 N.W.2d 266 (1988); Hirschman v. Maddox, 223 Neb. 302, 389 N.W.2d 297 (1986). Inherent in the trial judge's dismissal of the case is a finding that there was no evidence to support the plaintiffs'......
-
Hammond v. Nemaha County
...and fully appreciate the peril. Tiede v. Loup Power Dist., 226 Neb. 295, 300, 411 N.W.2d 312, 316 (1987). See, also, Hirschman v. Maddox, 223 Neb. 302, 389 N.W.2d 297 (1986). The court's holding in Hume v. Otoe County, 212 Neb. 616, 324 N.W.2d 810 (1982), is illustrative of the above princi......