Hanson v. Fledderman
| Decision Date | 18 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 7962,7962 |
| Citation | 111 N.W.2d 401 |
| Parties | Marie HANSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Vern FLEDDERMAN, doing business as Vern's Tavern, and Henry Reese, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the failure of the jury to agree on a verdict, or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, calls for a review of the grounds assigned in support of the motion for directed verdict.
2. The only question before the appellate court on appeal from an order denying motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is whether the motion for directed verdict should have been granted had the court not been prohibited from granting the same because of Rule 50(a), North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict calls for a review of the trial court's ruling in denying the previous motion for directed verdict and brings before the trial court, for the second time question raised by the motion for directed verdict.
4. Upon appeal from an order denying motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, only grounds assigned on motion for direct verdict will be considered.
Longmire & Caldis, Grand Forks, for plaintiff and respondent.
Day, Stokes, Vaaler & Gillig, Grand Forks, for defendants and appellants.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff for loss of services, support, and society of her husband, Wesley Hanson, who died as the result of injuries received in a bar owned by the defendant Fledderman, which bar was being operated, at the time of such injuries, by the defendant Henry Reese, an employee of Fledderman.
There is no dispute as to the facts. The plaintiff's husband had gone to the defendants' bar at about six o'clock in the evening. It is undisputed that, at that time, he was sober. Between six and nine-thirty, he purchased and consumed an undetermined number of glasses of beer. The defendant Henry Reese testified that the plaintiff's husband was in the tavern when he arrived for work, at about six-thirty o'clock, and admits selling him four glasses of beer but doesn't remember that he sold more than that to him. There is testimony that the plaintiff's husband was a peaceable individual when sober, but quarrelsome when intoxicated. During the evening, the plaintiff's husband became involved in several arguments and, at about nine-thirty o'clock, was involved in a fight in which he received injuries from which he subsequently died.
At the close of all of the testimony, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to prove a case upon which recovery could be had; that the plaintiff had failed to prove that there was any intoxication involved in this case as a result of which the plaintiff was injured; that there is no proof that the deceased was intoxicated; and that the evidence shows that plaintiff's decedent died as a result of injuries caused when his head struck the floor, and not in consequence of intoxication. Counsel for the plaintiff resisted this motion, and it was denied and the case was submitted to the jury. The jury, however, was unable to agree on a verdict and was discharged.
The defendants thereupon moved for judgment under Rule 50(b) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, in accordance with their motion for directed verdict. This motion was denied by the trial court. The defendants have appealed from the order denying their motion.
In denying a motion for directed verdict, the court shall be deemed to have submitted the case to the jury subject to a later determination of the questions of law raised by the motion. If no verdict is returned by the jury, the court may direct the entry of judgment as if the requested verdict had been directed, or the court may order a new trial. N.D.R.Civ.P. 50(b).
A motion for judgment notwithstanding the failure of the jury to agree on a verdict, or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, calls for a review of the grounds assigned in support of the motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aanenson v. Bastien
...in the purchase of the alcoholic beverages and they were allowed to recover damages under the Civil Damage Act. In Hanson v. Fledderman, 111 N.W.2d 401 (N.D.1961), the plaintiff's husband went to the defendant's bar and drank beer for several hours. During the evening he became involved in ......
-
Lindenberg v. Folson
...notwithstanding the verdict calls for a review of the grounds assigned in support of the motion for a directed verdict. Hanson v. Fledderman, N.D., 111 N.W.2d 401; Leach v. Kelsch, N.D., 106 N.W.2d 358; Westerso v. City of Williston, 77 N.D. 251, 42 N.W.2d The only question before the appel......
-
North Am. Pump Corp. v. Clay Equipment Corp.
...were assigned on a motion previously made for directed verdict. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass'n v. Briese, Supra; Hanson v. Fledderman, 111 N.W.2d 401 (N.D.1961); Leach v. Kelsch, 106 N.W.2d 358 After a careful and exhaustive review of the record and the evidence in this case, we conclud......
-
Linington v. McLean County
...the only grounds which will be considered will be those which were assigned on the motion for a directed verdict. Hanson v. Fledderman, 111 N.W.2d 401 (N.D.1961); Leach v. Kelsch, 106 N.W.2d 358 We have carefully examined the court's rulings with reference to the motion for a directed verdi......