¶1concurring in result.
¶2In my opinion the decision reached herein is correct but it overrules Kozloski v. Modern Litho, Inc., 182 Neb. 270, 154 N. W. 2d 460, and we should therefore say so.
¶3The cases cannot be distinguished. In Kozloski, there was glare ice at the entryway of a downtown office building for 10 hours before the accident and for 2 hours after the 7 a.m. opening of the building and the presence of the maintenance man on duty. A general 4-inch snow had covered the area 'and the buildings, roofs:, ledges, and other accessible places. 4 days before the accident. This condition remained the same under constant freezing conditions until 2 p.m. the preceding afternoon. The temperature then went above freezing and melting conditions prevailed from 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. and then the temperature went below freezing until the time of the accident. It could not be disputed but that the icy condition resulted from a foreseeable sequence of natural weather conditions and remained unattended for a period of over 2 hours after the maintenance man appeared the morning of the accident.
¶4And yet in Kozloski we reversed a jury verdict and directed a judgment for the defendant because there was not sufficient evidence of negligence. And now on the facts in this case the court holds, that a jury question was presented. The two results are irreconcilable. This case overrules Kozloski, as it should, but the court should say so. .