The Nebraska Supreme Court heard two (2) oral arguments from Domina Law Group pc llo on November 4, 2010. In Bridgeport Tractor Parts v. Gary’s Implement, Inc., the Court was asked by Domina Law Group pc llo to reject an appeal challenging a $1.25 million jury verdict won for DLGpc’s client in the trial court. The appealing party’s central argument on appeal is a challenge to the testimony of an expert witness. The witness, a forensic accountant, rendered opinion testimony concerning the extent of damages caused by breach of a covenant not to compete in the sale of a western Nebraska business. Domina Law Group pc llo was engaged for the second trial of the case following an earlier appeal which reversed the original outcome. “We are optimistic about holding the verdict for our client and concluding this long-standing litigation,” Dave Domina said after the argument.
The second case heard by the Nebraska Supreme Court involved Domina Law Group pc llo’s presentation of issues challenging a lower court’s decision to prevent a Merrick County jury from considering whether an excessive application of herbicide injured a corn crop. Domina Law Group pc llo sued the supplier of the herbicide claiming the rate of application was negligently determined and the excessive application of product harmed the crop.
The trial court concluded the transaction between the farmer and Coop involved the purchase of goods and the application of herbicide by the Coop was not a central purpose of the transaction. On this basis, the trial court dismissed Domina Law Group pc llo’s case without submitting it to the jury.
“We believe the trial court misunderstood the economic loss doctrine which governs UCC cases but not negligence actions where a product involves a person or object other than the product itself,” Dave Domina explained.
Domina and Brian Jorde briefed and presented the argument to the Nebraska Supreme Court. After argument, Jorde observed, “The oral arguments were lively and interesting, and the Court was obviously informed about the issues. We think the Court will reverse, remand, and permit our client’s case to proceed to trial.”