The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether, as a matter of law, the apportionment of negligence to the defendant city is greater than the negligence of the plaintiff.
We think not. Both parties admit negligence, the plaintiff because of her failure to make an efficient
In our opinion this is a case where credible evidence exists to support the jury's apportionment of negligence. Admittedly, the case is close and had we been members of the jury we might have allocated the negligence otherwise. But we have repeatedly held that ordinarily apportionment of negligence is for the jury.
This is not such an unusual case that in view of the entire record the trial court was entitled to disturb the apportionment. The trial court was incorrect in holding that defendant city, as a matter of law, was more negligent than the plaintiff. Because of that error the order for a new trial must be set aside and the verdict reinstated.
By the Court.—Order reversed, verdict reinstated and judgment for defendant entered on such verdict.