Simonsen v. Thorin
81 A.L.R. 1000, 234 N.W. 628, 120 Neb. 684 (1931)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who involuntarily, and without initial negligence, causes an obstruction in a public highway has a positive, continuing legal duty to either remove the nuisance or use ordinary care to warn travelers of the danger it presents.
Facts:
- Theodore M. Thorin's son, driving a delivery truck owned by Theodore M. Thorin, accidentally collided with and broke a trolley pole, causing it to fall and obstruct a public street.
- The collision between the Thorins' truck and the pole was not due to any negligence on the part of the Thorins.
- After the collision, the Thorins' son busied himself with removing his truck and left the scene of the accident as soon as possible.
- Mary Simonsen was riding as a passenger in an automobile driven by her husband.
- Mary Simonsen's vehicle collided with the trolley pole that was obstructing the street.
- At the time Mary Simonsen's car collided with the pole, no one was present at the scene warning approaching travelers of the danger.
- Mary Simonsen sustained personal injuries including a blow to the head, cuts, back pains, and a nervous condition, requiring hospitalization and ongoing care.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Simonsen (plaintiff) initiated an action in a trial court to recover damages for personal injuries against Theodore M. Thorin and his son (defendants).
- The trial court entered a judgment (implicitly for Simonsen).
- The Thorins (defendants) filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court overruled.
- The Thorins (appellants) appealed the judgment of the trial court to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual who involuntarily, and without negligence in the initial incident, causes an obstruction in a public street have a legal duty to remove the obstruction or warn travelers of the danger?
Opinions:
Majority - Day, J.
Yes, an individual who involuntarily, and without negligence in the initial incident, causes an obstruction in a public street has a legal duty to remove the obstruction or warn travelers of the danger. The court found that while the Thorins did not voluntarily hit the pole and were not negligent in the initial collision, the operation of their automobile was a voluntary act, and in the course of that act, they caused the obstruction to be placed in the street. Therefore, they could not be considered mere bystanders who have no legal obligation to remove or guard a pole. The court reasoned that when one engaged in the lawful use of the highway causes an obstruction dangerous to traffic, they must use ordinary care to prevent injury to others if they know the obstruction is calculated to do injury. Negligence, in this case, consists of placing and leaving an obstruction in a dangerous manner, a violation of Comp. St. 1929, sec. 39-1025. The defendants had a positive, continuing duty to warn the public of the danger. The court also held that a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was not warranted because the evidence would only serve to discredit a witness on a collateral point and would not probably change the outcome, as it remained undisputed that no warning was given at the time of the plaintiff's accident. Finally, the court found the $5,000 verdict for the plaintiff's injuries, which included head trauma, cuts, back pain, and a severe nervous condition requiring hospitalization, was not excessive given the unchallenged medical and corroborating family testimony.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of tort liability by establishing a duty to mitigate harm for individuals who, even through non-negligent acts, create dangerous conditions in public spaces. It distinguishes between a passive bystander and an active, albeit non-negligent, cause of an obstruction, thereby expanding the definition of actionable 'negligence' to include an omission to act after causing a hazard. The ruling underscores the paramount importance of public safety on highways, placing a positive obligation on those who create risks to either remove them or provide adequate warning. Future cases may look to this precedent when evaluating responsibility for accidental, yet dangerous, impediments to public thoroughfares, requiring parties to take affirmative steps to prevent foreseeable harm.
