S-23-0253 Adela Greco (Appellant) v. HammerPlex, Inc. and Student Transportation of Nebraska, Inc. d/b/a Student Transportation of America (Appellees)
Appeal from the Nebraska Court of Appeals on appeal therefrom the District Court for Douglas County, Judge W. Russell Bowie, III
Attorneys: James E. Harris (Harris & Associates, P.C., L.L.O. for Appellant) and Robert F. Bartle (Bartle & Geier Law Firm for Appellee)
Civil: Negligence
Proceedings Below: After being injured when she fell, Appellant filed suit alleging that Appellees failed to provide a reasonably safe walkway. After trial, the jury returned a verdict for Appellee, HammerPlex, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on appeal. Appellant petitioned for further review, which the Supreme Court sustained and ordered that this case be transferred to its docket.
Issues: On petition for further review, Appellant assigns the following errors: 1) The Court of Appeals erred in by failing to recognize the relevance and importance of timing of the trial court’s failure to rule on the threshold issue of duty as a matter of law until after the parties had rested, thereby unfairly prejudicing and depriving plaintiff of her right to present evidence of breach of duty to the jury; 2) The Court of Appeals committed error in fashioning a grammatical litmus test to reject appellate review for assignments of error and arguments framed imprecisely; 3) The Court of Appeals erred in determining that Appellant’s argument sections lacked sufficient, clear arguments for her four errors; 4) The Court of Appeals erred in stating Appellant’s brief only repeated her first error and failed to relate facts back to the trial court's timing of ruling on duty; 5) The Court of Appeals erred by taking language out of context, wrongly concluding “Greco didn't challenge the trial court's duty finding for HammerPlex assuredly because the district court found that HammerPlex had a duty to maintain the walkway and the cited authorities are therefore irrelevant for the purposes of Greco’s appeal and our review;” 6) The Court of Appeals committed plain error by failing to find that submitting jury instructions on general negligence allegations in a premises liability case, was contrary to established precedent, where a premises liability instruction is tendered and required; 7) The Court of Appeals committed plain error in ruling Appellant didn't effectively argue that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on premises liability, concurrent cause, and sole proximate cause; 8) The Court of Appeals erred by misinterpreting language to conclude Appellant didn't challenge the district court's premises liability instruction; and 9) The Court of Appeals committed plain errors, leading to a substantial rights violation and potentially undermining the judicial process, integrity and fairness to litigants and counsel.