Johnson v. Quinn
| Decision Date | 18 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | 19,304 - (210) |
| Citation | 153 N.W. 267,130 Minn. 134 |
| Parties | JOHN HAROLD JOHNSON v. J. A. QUINN |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $20,500 for personal injury received when run over by defendant's automobile. The case was tried before Brill, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $9,015. Defendant's motion for a new trial was granted on the ground of excessive damages, unless plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict to $7,000. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Amendment of complaint.
1. There was no error in an order of the court amending the complaint.
Evidence of negligence.
2. The evidence justified the jury in finding defendant negligent.
Damages not excessive.
3. The damages as reduced by the trial court are not excessive.
Objection to hypothetical question.
4. There was no error in not sustaining objections to certain hypothetical questions asked of an expert medical witness.
Opinions of experts.
5. There was no error in permitting expert witnesses to give their opinion as to the distance within which the automobile of defendant could be stopped.
Witness -- motion to strike out answer too late.
6. A motion to strike out an answer of a witness as not responsive, or on other grounds appearing when the answer is given, comes too late when it is not made until after the witness has been fully cross-examined and other witnesses have testified.
Charge to jury.
7. There was no error in the rulings on evidence, in the instructions to the jury, or in the refusal to give requested instructions.
Harris Richardson and Walter Richardson, for appellant.
Wickersham & Churchill, for respondent.
The jury which tried this case found a verdict for plaintiff assessing his damages at $9,015. Defendant moved for a new trial. The motion was denied on condition that plaintiff consent to a reduction of the verdict to $7,000. Plaintiff so consented, and defendant appealed from the order.
There are 65 assignments of error. They call in question the action of the trial court in ordering the complaint amended; the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding of negligence on the part of defendant; the amount of the damages, and various rulings on the admission of evidence and in refusing requests for instructions.
1. We pass the point made as to the amendment to the complaint with the remark that we see nothing in it, and no occasion to say anything, except that the complaint as amended stated a cause of action and was sufficiently definite and certain to enable defendant to intelligently make his answer and try the issues.
2. The evidence was sufficient to justify the jury in determining that the facts were as follows: Plaintiff, age 31, a boiler maker in the employ of a railroad company, at about one o'clock in the morning of Sunday, December 14, 1913, walked west on Seventh street in St. Paul to the northwest corner of Seventh and Sixth streets, expecting to find his brother at a dance in Central Hall and to go home with him. The hall was dark, and plaintiff started to cross the triangular space formed by the junction of Sixth, Seventh and Franklin streets to take a street car on the corner of Sixth and Franklin. As he reached a point some 25 feet from the curb of the sidewalk he had just left and about or beyond the center of Sixth street where it crosses Seventh, he was struck by an automobile coming from the east on Sixth street, and sustained serious injuries. The automobile belonged to and was driven by defendant. Its speed was about 15 miles per hour, no warning was given of its approach, and its lights were not lit. Plaintiff looked for automobiles as he left the curb, and saw none. The streets were lighted, but it was too dark to see far in any direction.
That the evidence justified the jury in finding defendant guilty of negligence in running his car without lights and without sounding a warning of its approach to this crossing, there can be no doubt and we so hold. It is claimed that the evidence does not show that the front lamps on the automobile were not lighted, but, an examination of the record convinces us that this was a question for the jury, and that the evidence sustains its finding thereon.
3. The verdict as reduced by the trial court is not so large that we can disturb the action of the trial court in refusing to set it aside as excessive. We have considered the evidence as to the character, extent and probable duration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial