Brazil v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 25 July 1890
• Citation: 46 N.W. 331,44 Minn. 212
• Parties: BRAZIL v PETERSON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

44 Minn. 212

46 N.W. 331

BRAZILvPETERSON.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 25, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Where the bar-keeper of a saloon forcibly ejected therefrom a person, while in an intoxicated and helpless condition, in a careless and reckless manner, and without regard to his condition or safety, so as to cause a fracture of his leg, held, that the proprietor of the saloon was liable in damages to the person so injured.

2. Evidence held sufficient to support the verdict.

3. Held, also, that there was no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in refusing a new trial on the ground of the newly-discovered evidence disclosed by the record.

Appeal from district court, Waseca county; BUCKHAM, Judge.

Sawyer, Abbott & Sawyer, for appellant.

Lovely & Morgan, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The defendant was the proprietor of a saloon in New Richland, Waseca county. On the 17th day of November, 1887, plaintiff, already partially intoxicated, entered the saloon, where, as the evidence tends to show, he drank whisky and became helplessly drunk, and was ejected from the saloon by defendant's servant. Plaintiff was not boisterous, and made no serious resistance. He was thrust or pushed through the back door, and was found later in the day lying on his face on the ice and frozen ground just over a low platform extending beyond the door steps, with his leg broken. The evidence tends to show that defendant's servant seized him by the neck and shoulders, and hurried him to the door, and shoved or pushed him out over the steps, in a careless and reckless manner, and without regard to his condition or safety. The conclusion of the jury, that his injuries were caused by the negligence and misconduct of defendant's servant, was warranted by the evidence. The surgeon, Cummings, examined the injured limb shortly after the injury, and in the course of his examination as a witness testified, under objection, that pain experienced by the plaintiff in the injured leg for a year or more after the injury would be attributable to the fracture, and explained that injuries to the ligaments which occurred in such cases were slowly recovered from. The witness was a medical expert, and there was no error in receiving this evidence. The evidence introduced by plaintiff to contradict defendant's servant, Knutson, was proper, the foundation having been laid therefor in the cross-examination of the latter, and evidence of his peaceable...