8 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Arsand v. City of Franklingreen2 sentences1988“The nondelegable duty exception is based upon the theory that certain responsibilities of a principal are so important that the principal should not be permitted to bargain away the risks of performance.” Arsand v. City of Franklin, 83 Wis. 2d 40, 54 , 264 N.W.2d 579, 586 (1978), at n. 8. 1988“The nondelegable duty exception is based upon the theory that certain responsibilities of a principal are so important that the principal should not be permitted to bargain away the risks of performance.” Arsand v. City of Franklin, 83 Wis. 2d 40, 54 , 264 N.W.2d 579, 586 (1978), at n. 8. | 2 | 2 |
Witucke v. Presque Isle Bankgreen2 sentences1988The nondelegable duty exception to the rule of nonliability was described by the court in Witucke v Presque Isle Bank, 68 Mich. App. 599, 610 , 243 N.W.2d 907, 912 (1976): “[W]e believe that an essential element of *742 the doctrine is the failure of the principal to see that all appropriate precautions are taken by the one to perform the inherently dangerous task. 1988The nondelegable duty exception to the rule of nonliability was described by the court in Witucke v Presque Isle Bank, 68 Mich. App. 599, 610 , 243 N.W.2d 907, 912 (1976): “[W]e believe that an essential element of *742 the doctrine is the failure of the principal to see that all appropriate precautions are taken by the one to perform the inherently dangerous task. | 2 | 2 |
Anderson v. Service Merchandise Co., Inc.green2 sentences1993“Liability for breach of a nondelegable duty is an exception to the general rule that one who employs an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligence.” Anderson v. Service Merchandise Co., 240 Neb. 873, 885 , 485 N.W.2d 170, 178 (1992). 1993“Liability for breach of a nondelegable duty is an exception to the general rule that one who employs an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligence.” Anderson v. Service Merchandise Co., 240 Neb. 873, 885 , 485 N.W.2d 170, 178 (1992). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rodriguez v. Surgical Assocs.
green
2 sentences2018Cite as 298 Neb. 573 that [he] was not required to be aware of all the medi- cal information.”27 [11] Based on our longstanding precedent on vicarious liability and the nondelegable duty exception, we agree that a nondelegable duty instruction is not appropriate when there are no judicial admissions or evidence that a defendant had assigned the performance of his duties to a subordinate party at the time that the alleged breach occurred. 2018Cite as 298 Neb. 573 that [he] was not required to be aware of all the medi- cal information.”27 [11] Based on our longstanding precedent on vicarious liability and the nondelegable duty exception, we agree that a nondelegable duty instruction is not appropriate when there are no judicial admissions or evidence that a defendant had assigned the performance of his duties to a subordinate party at the time that the alleged breach occurred. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Jacobs Eng'g Grp. Inc. v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018GROUP v. CONAGRA FOODS Cite as 301 Neb. 38 with the statement from ConAgra’s brief that “[t]here is no basis for reading this contract to require [common-law tort] liability.”79 However, we conclude there is evidence to support the contract theory. (i) There Was Evidence to Support Jury’s Finding ConAgra’s Negligence Was Proximate Cause of Jacobs’ Damages [34,35] A party is only answerable for the natural, probable, reasonable, and proximate consequences of his acts; and where some new efficient cause intervenes, not set in motion by him, and not connected with but independent of his acts and | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gaytan v. Wal-Mart
green
1 sentence2018They also argue that Rodriguez was not prejudiced, because there was no attempt to shift the blame to a nonparty and the court gave another instruction that Fitzke could still be liable even if another individual was also negligent. [8] Generally, one who employs an independent contractor is not vicariously liable for physical harm caused to another by the acts or omissions of the contractor or its servants.11 This is 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 See Gaytan v. Wal-Mart, 289 Neb. 49 , 853 N.W.2d 181 (2014). - 584 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports RODRIGUEZ v. SURGICAL ASSOCS. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Erickson v. Monarch Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Erickson v. Monarch Indus., 216 Neb. 875 , 347 N.W.2d 99 (1984); Sullivan v. Geo. 2003Erickson v. Monarch Indus., 216 Neb. 875 , 347 N.W.2d 99 (1984); Sullivan v. Geo. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Parrish v. Omaha Public Power District
green
1 sentence2000Id. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Simon v. Omaha Public Power District
green
2 sentences1993In Simon v. Omaha P. P. Dist., 189 Neb. 183 , 202 N.W.2d 157 (1972) this court acknowledged that an owner of premises has a nondelegable duty to provide a safe place for work by a contractor’s employee, that is, a duty which “cannot be delegated or avoided by contract where the owner retains possession and control of the premises.” 189 Neb. at 194 , 202 N.W.2d at 164 . 1993In Simon v. Omaha P. P. Dist., 189 Neb. 183 , 202 N.W.2d 157 (1972) this court acknowledged that an owner of premises has a nondelegable duty to provide a safe place for work by a contractor’s employee, that is, a duty which “cannot be delegated or avoided by contract where the owner retains possession and control of the premises.” 189 Neb. at 194 , 202 N.W.2d at 164 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.