This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat.§ 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C1-95-2716 Deborah Arndt, Appellant, and Group Health, Inc., Intervenor, vs. Khanh Quoc Nguyen, et al., Respondents. Filed August 13, 1996 Affirmed Kalitowski, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. 9214599 Clarance E. Hagglund, Hagglund & Weimer, 4000 Water Park Place, 5101 Olson Memorial Highway, Minneapolis, MN 55422 (for Appellant) Stephen Tillitt, Elliot L. Olsen, Gislason, Dosland, Hunter & Malecki, P.L.L.P., P.O. Box 5297, Minnetonka, MN 55343-2297 (for Respondent Nguyen) Lawrence R. King, King & Hatch, Six West 5th Street, Suite 800, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for Respondent Nguyen) Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Parker, Judge, and Randall, Judge. U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Deborah Arndt challenges the jury's determination that Khanh Quoc Nguyen did not operate his car negligently on December 30, 1991, when Nguyen's vehicle crossed the center line and struck appellant's vehicle. We affirm. D E C I S I O N A court's decision not to overturn a jury's special verdict finding of no negligence will be reversed on appeal only if there is no evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict or if it is manifestly and palpably against the weight of the evidence. Stumne v. Village Sports & Gas, 309 Minn. 551, 552, 243 N.W.2d 329, 330 (1976). In examining a verdict on appeal the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and the verdict must be sustained if it is possible to do so on any reasonable theory of evidence. Id. The violation of a traffic law constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence. Minn. Stat. § 169.96 (1990). A person who violates a traffic law, therefore, has the burden of showing some justification or excuse for the violation. Freude v. Berzins, 379 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Minn. App. 1985). If the violator presents evidence tending to show excuse or justification, the question of whether the violation constitutes negligence is for the jury. Marshall v. Galvez, 480 N.W.2d 358, 361 (Minn. App. 1992). Losing control of a vehicle because of external factors such as wet or slippery road conditions is a reasonable alternative explanation for violating a traffic law. Id. Evidence of such road conditions provides sufficient justification to present a factual question regarding negligence to the jury. Id.; see also, Brager v. Coca- Cola Bottling Co. of Fargo, 375 N.W.2d 884 (Minn. App. 1985) (reversing a district court's decision to grant JNOV in a negligence action where the driver who caused the automobile accident presented evidence of bad weather and worsening driving conditions). Nguyen does not dispute that he violated Minn. Stat. § 169.18 (1990) by crossing into Arndt's lane of traffic. When taken in a light most favorable to the verdict, however, the evidence shows that Nguyen had been able to control his vehicle for several miles prior to the accident, had passed another motorist without losing control of his vehicle on the road where the accident occurred, and only lost control of his vehicle when hitting an icy patch of road while driving in worsening freezing rain conditions. Under Marshall, Nguyen's testimony created a fact question on the issue of negligence that was properly determined by the jury. The jury could have viewed the evidence presented and found Nguyen acted negligently in causing the accident. This court's function, however, is not to reexamine the evidence. The serious injuries suffered by Arndt, an innocent victim, are unfortunate. However, because there is competent evidence in the record reasonably tending to sustain the verdict, and because the verdict is not manifestly and palpably against the weight of the evidence, we are compelled to affirm the district court's refusal to set aside the jury's verdict. Affirmed.