Were the district courts assumption of risk instructions, cumulative, confusing, and misleading?
The Court noted that the instructions given to the jury included two instructions that explained the assumption of risk defense. These two instructions followed the recommended pattern jury instructions and only repeated the burden placed upon Spence to prove all three elements of the assumption of risk defense. The instructions also correctly set forth Nebraska law concerning assumption of risk, consistent with the defense. The Court found the instructions were not cumulative, were not confusing and misleading, and were not erroneous. Does the statute authorizing and defining assumption of risk as an affirmative defense violate plaintiffs’ equal protection rights therefore being unconstitutional? The Court concluded that Daubenmier failed to properly raise this claim involving the constitutionality of the statute. Although the record in the present case indicated that Daubenmier asserted his challenge to the constitutionality of § 25-21,185.12 at the trial level and the trial court ru
Related Questions
- If our district decides to use the Construction Manager at Risk ("CM at Risk") delivery method, as allowed under the Commonwealth’s 2004 construction reform law, do we still have to hire an OPM?
- Were the district courts assumption of risk instructions, cumulative, confusing, and misleading?
- What is the difference between federal district and appellate courts?
