Trussell v. Ferguson
| Citation | 239 N.W. 461,122 Neb. 82 |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 28014.,28014. |
| Parties | TRUSSELL v. FERGUSON. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
TRUSSELL
v.
FERGUSON.
No. 28014.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Dec. 11, 1931.
Refusal of requested instruction does not constitute error, where instruction given by the court on its own motion is to the same effect.
[239 N.W. 462]
A party who induces the trial court to give an erroneous instruction, by requesting one to the same effect, cannot predicate error thereon.
Rules and regulations made and issued by the department of public works under the authority and in accord with section 39-1416, Comp. St. 1929, are admissible where applicable to the evidence.
Appeal from District Court, Holt County; Dickson, Judge.
Action by Moses B. Trussell against Harry Ferguson. Judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
Reversed and cause remanded.
Ralph M. Kryger, of Neligh, Good, Good & Kirkpatrick, of Lincoln, and Julius D. Cronin, of O'Neill, for appellant.
J. A. Donohoe and J. J. Harrington, both of O'Neill, for appellee.
Heard before GOSS, C. J., DEAN and EBERLY, JJ., and CHASE and HASTINGS, District Judges.
GOSS, C. J.
Plaintiff obtained a verdict and judgment for damages against defendant for personal injuries. Both parties were driving west on highway number 20 and about a mile and a quarter west of Royal in Antelope county. Plaintiff was driving a team hitched to a wagon. Back of the seat was a disk. Hitched to the wagon on the rear he had a tandem tow of two mowers he had purchased at a sale. It was about sundown. There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether it was dark enough to require lights on cars. Plaintiff had no lights on his wagon or on the mowing machines behind it. Defendant, driving an automobile west, struck the rear mower. The effect was to throw plaintiff back from his seat against the disk and to injure him. Defendant testified he was driving about 30 miles an hour; the bright lights of an east-bound car blinded him so that he slowed down a little to get his bearings; “so I was looking at the side of the road and the center of the road, and I looked up ahead of me and suddenly there right in front of me was an object, I didn't know what it was, and I whirled to the left to avoid it, but I didn't avoid it, I was too close to it and I hit it on one wheel” (parenthetically, it should be said that defendant, on cross-examination, admitted that the car with bright lights had passed him a quarter of a mile before he struck plaintiff's rig and that he was watching another car which...
To continue reading
Request your trial