Alholm v. Wilt, C0-83-1163

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota
Citation348 N.W.2d 106
Docket NumberNo. C0-83-1163,C0-83-1163
PartiesTerrance ALHOLM, Appellant, v. Richard E. WILT, d.b.a., Lakeside Bar, Respondent, North River Insurance Company, Respondent, William C. Miles, Respondent.
Decision Date08 May 1984

Page 106

348 N.W.2d 106
Terrance ALHOLM, Appellant,
v.
Richard E. WILT, d.b.a., Lakeside Bar, Respondent,
North River Insurance Company, Respondent,
William C. Miles, Respondent.
No. C0-83-1163.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
May 8, 1984.
Review Denied September 12, 1984.

Page 107

Syllabus by the Court

1. Appeal was timely when taken within 30 days of an order denying a new trial, even though the time to appeal from the original judgment had expired.

2. Trial court should not have directed a verdict where sufficient evidence was introduced at trial to require submission of the issue of innkeeper's liability to the jury.

3. Evidence supported the jury's verdict in favor of appellant upon the theory of dram shop liability.

Page 108

Harold R. Fritz, II, Nisswa, for appellant.

Steven A. Hanson, Brainerd, for Richard E. Wilt, d.b.a. Lakeside Bar, and North River Ins. Co.

John W. Person, Brainerd, for Richard E. Wilt d.b.a. Lakes Side Bar.

Heard, considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and FORSBERG and RANDALL, JJ.

OPINION

FORSBERG, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court denying appellant's motion for a new trial. Appellant argued in his motion that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of respondent Lakeside Bar on the issue of innkeeper's liability. Appellant has also raised several new evidentiary issues upon appeal which were not raised in his motion for a new trial. Those issues cannot be considered at this time. See Rathbun v. W.T. Grant Co., 300 Minn. 223, 219 N.W.2d 641 (1974). Respondent Lakeside Bar has contested the timeliness of this appeal. Lakeside has also requested review of an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the dram shop claim, but has not argued that issue in its brief. We affirm in part, but reverse and remand on the issue of innkeeper's liability.

FACTS

On August 16, 1980, very early in the morning, as appellant was leaving the Lakeside Bar with his wife, he was struck in the face by a glass thrown by respondent Miles, who had followed appellant out of the bar into an adjoining alley. Miles had arrived at the bar earlier in an intoxicated state. He testified that while at the Lakeside Bar he was served five or six screwdrivers. There was testimony by employees and bystanders that he was boisterous, rowdy, insulting, obnoxious, and angry while in the bar. Miles testified that he was not asked to leave the bar. He also admitted that he had frequented the bar several times prior to the night in question, and had been involved in arguments, fights, and "slapping matches" in or about the bar.

ISSUES

I. Was the appeal timely?

II. Did the trial court err in granting a directed verdict in favor of respondent on the issue of innkeeper's liability?

III. Was the verdict in favor of the appellant on the issue of dram shop liability supported by the evidence?

ANALYSIS

I.

Appellant failed to appeal from the judgment in this matter, but after the expiration of the 90-day appeal period, he did appeal within 30 days of an order of the court denying his motion for a new trial.

Respondent Lakeside claims that appellant should not be able to "extend" the time for appeal. However, in Honeymead Products Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 270 Minn. 147, 132 N.W.2d 741 (1965), the court states that an appeal from a post-judgment order denying a new trial is not barred simply because the time to appeal from the judgment has expired. In addition, the present rules of appellate procedure specifically provide that an appeal may be taken from an order denying a new trial (Rule 103.03(d), Minn.R.Civ.App.P.) and that an appeal from an order may be taken within 30 days after service of notice of that order (Rule 104.01, Minn.R.Civ.App.P.).

II.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, s. 88-0592
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 30 Enero 1991
    ...Pub lost their invitee status while waiting outside the Pub's legal boundaries. In the recent case of Alholm v. Wilt (1984), Minn.App., 348 N.W.2d 106, the occurrence of an assault in a public alley behind the tavern did not bar the tavern's liability. The Minnesota Appellate Court found a ......
  • Ember v. B.F.D., Inc., 2-883-A-291
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 13 Marzo 1986
    ...Pub lost their invitee status while waiting outside the Pub's legal boundaries. In the recent case of Alholm v. Wilt (1984), Minn.App., 348 N.W.2d 106, the occurrence of an assault in a public alley behind the tavern did not bar the tavern's liability. The Minnesota Appellate Court found a ......
  • Alholm v. Wilt, CX-85-1238
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 10 Octubre 1986
    ...court instructed the jury on innkeeper liability using the four elements identified by the panel of the court of appeals in Alholm I, 348 N.W.2d 106, 109 (Minn.App.1984). 3 Page 490 The jury returned a verdict absolving respondent from causal negligence. Contending that the court's instruct......
  • Roy v. Banana Joe's of Minnesota, Inc., No. A04-54 (MN 10/5/2004), A04-54.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • 5 Octubre 2004
    ...Obvious intoxication will signal a heightened likelihood of such behavior. Priewe, 249 Minn. at 492-93, 83 N.W.2d at 120; Alholm v. Wilt, 348 N.W.2d 106, 109 (Minn. App. 1984), review denied (Minn. Sept. 12, 1984) [hereinafter Alholm I]. Notice also may be based on a history of prior violen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT