Watkins v. Hand
| Decision Date | 11 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 40656,40656 |
| Citation | 253 N.W.2d 287,198 Neb. 451 |
| Parties | Cheryl Lynn WATKINS, Appellee, v. James Richard HAND, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A tort-feasor whose negligence has caused injury to another is also liable for any injury or reinjury that is the proximate result of the original injury, except where the subsequent injury or reinjury was caused by either the negligence of the injured person, or by an independent or intervening act of the injured person, or by an independent or intervening act of a third person.
J. Thomas Rowen, of Miller & Rowen, P. C., Omaha, for appellant.
Warren C. Schrempp, Richard E. Schugrue, Thomas G. McQuade, of Schrempp, Dinsmore & McQuade, Omaha, for appellee.
Heard before SPENCER, McCOWN and CLINTON, JJ., and MORAN and KELLY, District Judges.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages from the defendant for personal injuries arising out of an automobile collision on December 15, 1971, at an intersection in Omaha, Nebraska. The vehicle driven by plaintiff was struck by a vehicle driven through a red light by defendant. Plaintiff sought recovery for permanent injuries, pain and suffering, and loss of earning capacity arising out of that accident as well as for injuries sustained in a one-car accident on October 7, 1972, which she claimed proximately resulted from the first accident. At the trial, the trial judge directed a verdict against the defendant on the issue of liability for the accident of December 15, 1971, from which the defendant has not appealed. The trial judge also instructed the jury to consider only injuries sustained in the second accident which proximately resulted from the first accident. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed. Several errors are assigned but we consider only one. The defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury to assess damages only for the injuries sustained in the first accident. We agree and reverse.
After the first accident the plaintiff complained of neck and back pain and headaches. X-rays were normal and there were no objective findings of injury. Because of her complaints, she was examined by a neurologist whose findings were negative and she was referred to a physician specializing in rehabilitative medicine. The plaintiff testified that while operating her motor vehicle and traveling to a hospital for therapy prescribed by the physician, she blacked out and her vehicle struck a tree. She suffered severe facial injuries and aggravated the soft tissue injury she sustained in the first accident. The plaintiff had never experienced a blackout before. The doctor testified that in the first accident the plaintiff sustained a cervical dorsal strain which made her more vulnerable to injury in the second accident; that she had permanent partial disability of 10 to 15 percent at the time of trial; but that if the second accident had not occurred the cervical dorsal strain would have cleared up and she would not have had the disability testified to. The doctor also testified that the medication plaintiff was taking was not the cause of the second accident, and that there was no way he could relate the second accident to the first.
The plaintiff contends that the failure of the defendant to make an adequate record of objections to proposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hashimoto v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., s. 87-120
...in three accidents within seventeen days; Bolin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 204 So.2d 49, 51 (La.App.1967); Watkins v. Hand, 198 Neb. 451, 253 N.W.2d 287, 289 (1977); Armstrong v. Bergeron, 104 N.H. 85, 178 A.2d 293, 294 (1962); Williams v. Gragston, 7 Ohio App.3d 369, 455 N.E.2d 1075 (1......
-
Barkley v. Freeman, 66461
...in a prior automobile accident. See Stevens v. Gulf American Fire & Casualty Company, 317 So.2d 199 (La.App.1975); Watkins v. Hand, 198 Neb. 451, 253 N.W.2d 287 (1977); Ortiz v. Mendolia, 116 A.D.2d 707, 497 N.Y.S.2d 761 (1986); Hashimoto v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 767 P.2d 158 (Wyo.1989). ......
-
Brake v. Speed
...not the damage can be apportioned between the two injuries. Hashimoto v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 767 P.2d 158 (Wyo.1989); Watkins v. Hand, 253 N.W.2d 287 (Neb.1977); Bruckman v. Pena, 29 Colo.App. 357, 487 P.2d 566 (Colo.1971); McGuire v. Oliver, 227 So.2d 149 (La.App. 2d Application of the......
-
Armstrong v. Hickman County Highway Dept.
...for the death holding the evidence sufficient to show a causal relation between the first and second injury. In Watkins v. Hand, 198 Neb. 451, 253 N.W. 287 (1977), 10 months after the first injury, plaintiff "blacked out" causing a second accident and injury. The appellate court reversed a ......