Eischen v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 August 1900
• Citation: 83 N.W. 490,81 Minn. 59
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: EISCHEN v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

81 Minn. 59

83 N.W. 490

EISCHEN

v.CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 1, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Wabasha county; Arthur H. Snow, Judge.

Action by Sarah Eischen, by John Eischen, guardian ad litem, against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. From a judgment setting aside a verdict in favor of defendant and granting a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Where a jury is instructed by the court, of its own motion, to find special answers to certain questions bearing upon vital issues in the case, which questions are submitted, the court is not at liberty, without the consent of the parties, to withdraw or disregard such questions by accepting a general verdict without answers thereto. M. B. Webber and Webber & Lees, for appellant.

A. Z. Putnam and Campbell & Campbell. for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

This was a personal injury action, in which defendant had a verdict. It was set aside, and a new trial granted, solely because the jury failed to answer three special questions submitted to them, to be answered in connection with their general verdict. These questions were: First. Was the defendant negligent? Second. If so, was its negligence the proximate cause of the injury? Third. Was the plaintiff's ward guilty of contributory negligence? The jury were instructed that if they answered the first and second in the affirmative, and the third in the negative, they must find a verdict for the plaintiff in some amount, but if their answers to the first and second questions were in the negative, and to the third in the affirmative, their verdict must be for defendant. It is obvious that these questions served to direct the jury's attention to the vital issues in the case,-issues which would have to be passed upon before the general result could be reached. Answers to these three questions would have been material and decisive. Without affirmative answers to the first and second, plaintiff would not be entitled to recover. And, with affirmative answers to both questions, a verdict in plaintiff's favor could not be sustained unless the jury answered the third negatively. These were the positive instructions of the court, upon its own motion, and without objection. Of course, it was within the discretion of the trial court to submit these questions to the determination of the jury; but that it did so, without the request of counsel, indicates that there were good reasons therefor. We regard the question now before us as settled in this state by the case of Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. Wadsworth, 40 Minn. 547, 42 N. W. 541, in which it was said that where the jury is directed by the court to find special answers to certain material questions submitted to them for their consideration, and they...