LINCOLN, Neb. (Legal Newsline) - Clarifying its opinion that circumstantial evidence is just as conclusive as any other kind of evidence, Nebraska’s highest court reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit by the family of a man who plunged to his death from a balcony, taking the railing with him.
The Nebraska Supreme Court rejected arguments by the owner of the apartment building that because no eyewitnesses could describe exactly what happened, a jury would be forced to speculate about whether the man fell because he was drunk or because the balcony railing gave way.
“A plaintiff is not required to prove its theory of negligence by evidence so clear as to exclude every other possible theory,” the court ruled in a March 17 decision. “All the law requires is that the facts and circumstances proved, together with the inferences that may be logically drawn from them, indicate that the negligence complained of was more likely true than not true.”
Clay Block was 24 years old and attending a party at a friend’s apartment when he went out on a balcony the tenants used as a “smoking lounge.” The apartment was on the second floor of a building owned by Mountain Plains Research Inc.
Block, Lauren Harms and Marlon Sanchez were smoking cigarettes on the balcony when the three stood up. Harms testified Block leaned against the railing and fell off the balcony, while Sanchez said he went to give Block a handshake and the man leaned against the steel railing and fell. Three-and-a-half years later, Harms testified that “to this day” she didn’t understand how Block fell or what caused the railing to fall. Sanchez said he heard the railing hit the sidewalk and Harms scream.
A deputy sheriff testified he inspected the scene later and said the balcony was “somewhat rotted” where lag bolts were supposed to secure the metal railing to the wood.
Block’s parents and two minor children sued the landlord and the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there were no eyewitnesses who could describe about how the fall occurred and whether the railing gave way or Block stumbled drunkenly over the edge. A toxicologist determined Block had a blood alcohol level equivalent to 11 standard drinks and a witness testified party guests were taking THC and Block “might have hit the blunt twice.” A defense lawyer said “Block can’t tell us and the eyewitnesses can’t tell us, so we just don’t know what happened.”
The plaintiffs cited multiple witnesses who testified Block didn’t appear drunk and wasn’t slurring his speech. But Wayne County Judge James G. Kube granted dismissal, ruling a jury would be forced to speculate about what “actually caused” Block to fall.
The plaintiffs appealed and the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed. The court started by observing “we have been less than meticulous in our language” regarding circumstantial evidence in civil cases and whether the burden of proof is higher than in criminal cases. There is no difference in the standard of proof, the court ruled. There is no difference between direct evidence, which proves facts without any need for the jury to infer anything; and circumstantial evidence, which involves two or more facts that lead the jury to a logical conclusion.
Plaintiffs also don’t need to prove a theory of negligence to the point that it excludes all other causes. All the law requires is the facts and circumstances make it more likely than not negligence was to blame.
The defendants cited a prior Nebraska Supreme Court decision stating the mere fact an accident happened isn’t evidence of negligence. But if plaintiffs can show there was enough evidence for jurors to logically conclude negligence was to blame, it’s their exclusive choice to make.
In this case, the defendants argued Harms and Sanchez declined multiple opportunities to testify they saw exactly how Block fell. But the plaintiffs argued that if Block hadn’t made contact with the railing before he fell, “how did the railing end up on the ground next to him? It is really that simple.”
“The plaintiffs have shown that a jury could find that the accident happened in the manner alleged,” the court concluded. “A rational jury could even find that Block was intoxicated and lost his balance, leading him to come into contact with the railing, which then and detached and fell with him instead of preventing his fall.”
Block’s family was represented by Willis J. and Steve Hamilton of Hamilton Law Firm. The defendants were represented by Engles, Ketcham, Olson & Keith.