Palmtag v. Gartner Construction Co.
513 N.W.2d 495, 245 Neb. 405, 1994 Neb. LEXIS 66 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence action, a trial court's failure to define 'reasonable care' when instructing the jury on the defendant's standard of care constitutes prejudicial plain error, even if not specifically requested, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict requires a renewed motion for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence.
Facts:
- Janet and John Palmtag hired Gartner Construction Co. to remodel their newly purchased home under an oral agreement for time and materials.
- Gartner's employee, David Njus, disassembled a spiral staircase located in the main floor entry, which descended to the basement through a 5-foot-square opening.
- During the staircase removal, Njus also removed plywood aprons and angle irons, which had provided support for the main floor landing around the opening.
- After removing these supports, Njus checked the landing's stability by hanging his weight on it, feeling it was solid, but the landing was a separate piece of wood only 'toenailed' into the rest of the floor.
- Njus installed a diagonal barricade across the main floor handrailing, consisting of a wire with a small piece of plywood (approximately 18 by 6-8 inches) in the middle, which did not cover the entire opening and had no warning signs.
- Janet Palmtag, who was 8 months pregnant, arrived at the house to review the remodeling work and briefly spoke with Njus and another employee as they were leaving.
- As Palmtag walked through the entry area, she noticed the barricade and then realized the staircase was gone; as she paused approximately one foot from the opening to warn her 3-year-old son, the landing collapsed beneath her.
- Palmtag fell to the basement floor, sustaining a 20-percent compression fracture of her 12th thoracic vertebra (resulting in a 20-25% permanent disability), a torus fracture of her right wrist, and other injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Janet A. Palmtag (plaintiff) filed a negligence lawsuit against Gartner Construction Co. (defendant) in the district court (trial court).
- The district court conducted a trial, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Palmtag.
- The district court entered judgment based on the jury's verdict, awarding damages to Palmtag.
- Gartner Construction Co. (defendant-appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the Nebraska Court of Appeals.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court, acting under statutory authority (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3)), removed the case from the Court of Appeals to its own docket to manage appellate caseloads.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court commit prejudicial error by failing to define 'reasonable care' in its jury instructions regarding the defendant's standard of care in a negligence action?
Opinions:
Majority - Caporale, J.
Yes, the district court did commit prejudicial error by failing to define 'reasonable care' in its jury instructions. The Court first addressed Gartner Construction Co.'s (defendant's) other assignments of error. It ruled that the defendant waived any error in the district court's overruling of its motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence because the defendant proceeded to adduce its own evidence. Furthermore, the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was not properly before the court because the defendant failed to make a new or renewed motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, a statutory prerequisite. The Court then addressed the jury instructions, finding no prejudicial error in how the district court summarized plaintiff's allegations of negligence or in its determination that the plaintiff was an invitee as a matter of law. The court reasoned that the facts essential to plaintiff's status were undisputed, showing a 'mutual advantage' or 'economic benefit' between Palmtag (owner with control over the work) and Gartner (contractor), thus making Palmtag an invitee. However, the Court found plain error in the district court's failure to define 'reasonable care' for the jury. Although the instructions mentioned the defendant's 'failed to use reasonable care,' they did not explain that 'reasonable care' means the degree of caution an ordinary, or reasonably prudent, person would exercise under like circumstances. This omission prejudicially failed to limit the jury's consideration to the appropriate standard of conduct. The court emphasized that a trial judge has a duty to correctly instruct on the law without request, and an appellate court can address plain error.
Analysis:
This case clarifies crucial procedural requirements for motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, establishing that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict requires a renewed motion for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence. More significantly, it reiterates the fundamental importance of properly instructing a jury on essential legal definitions, specifically 'reasonable care,' in negligence cases. The ruling underscores that a trial court's failure to define such a core concept constitutes prejudicial plain error, which an appellate court can review even without a party's objection. This case reinforces the principle that accurate and complete jury instructions are paramount to ensuring a fair trial where the jury applies the correct legal standards to the facts.
