Sundeen v. Lehenbauer
| Decision Date | 09 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1020,86-1020 |
| Citation | 428 N.W.2d 629,229 Neb. 727 |
| Parties | Gloria SUNDEEN, Appellant, v. Gladys LEHENBAUER, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Directed Verdict. A trial court should direct a verdict as a matter of law only when the facts are conceded, undisputed, or such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion therefrom.
2. Trial: Appeal and Error. Conduct of final argument is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent abuse of that discretion, the trial court's ruling regarding final argument will not be disturbed.
Alan L. Plessman, Lincoln, for appellant.
William D. Sutter, of Barlow, Johnson, DeMars & Flodman, Lincoln, for appellee.
This action arose out of an automobile accident near the intersection of 66th and P Streets in Lincoln, Nebraska. During the course of the trial, the testimony of five medical witnesses of the plaintiff was adduced through videotape depositions.
After all the evidence was submitted, plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on the issue of liability. The motion was overruled. The defendant then moved for an order prohibiting plaintiff's counsel from presenting to the jury, as part of his closing argument, portions of the videotape depositions of the five medical witnesses. The trial court sustained defendant's motion and ruled that the videotapes could not be shown. The court further ruled that neither party could, during closing argument, read portions of written transcripts of any deposition of witnesses.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $6,800.
The plaintiff has appealed. The plaintiff makes the following assignments of error: (1) The district court committed reversible error in overruling plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict; (2) the district court committed reversible error in ordering that plaintiff's counsel not show to the jury, during his closing argument, any portion of the videotape depositions which had been played to the jury during the trial; and (3) the district court committed reversible error in ordering that neither party's counsel could, during his closing argument, read portions of the written transcripts of any depositions of witnesses.
A review of the record confirms the decision of the trial judge to submit the question of liability. An examination of the evidence indicates a jury could have found that the plaintiff did not maintain a proper lookout, used her turn signal in a misleading manner, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindsay Mfg. Co. v. Universal Sur. Co.
...conceded, undisputed, or such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion therefrom. Kozeny v. Miller, supra; Sundeen v. Lehenbauer, 229 Neb. 727, 428 N.W.2d 629 (1988). The party against whom the verdict is directed is entitled to have every controverted fact resolved in his or her f......
-
Haag v. Bongers
...and absent an abuse of that discretion, the trial court's ruling regarding final argument will not be disturbed. Sundeen v. Lehenbauer, 229 Neb. 727, 428 N.W.2d 629 (1988), citing State v. Reeves, 216 Neb. 206, 344 N.W.2d 433 In the instant case, no witness testified that warnings, if given......
-
Bailey v. Amisub (Saint Joseph Hosp.), Inc.
...court, and a trial court's ruling regarding final argument will not be disturbed absent abuse of that discretion. Sundeen v. Lehenbauer, 229 Neb. 727, 428 N.W.2d 629 (1988) (citing State v. Reeves, 216 Neb. 206, 344 N.W.2d 433 In support of their contention defendants cite Sandomierski v. F......
-
Schriner v. Schriner
...court, and a trial court's ruling regarding final argument will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. See Sundeen v. Lehenbauer, 229 Neb. 727, 428 N.W.2d 629 (1988). We find no abuse of discretion here. The record reflects that both parties were treated equally and fairly by the c......