Kostuch v. St. Paul City Railway Company
| Decision Date | 20 December 1899 |
| Docket Number | 11,884 - (165) |
| Citation | 81 N.W. 215,78 Minn. 459 |
| Parties | JOHN KOSTUCH v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $4,145 damages for injuries to plaintiff's person and to his horse and wagon. The case was tried before Brill, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $700; and from an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Charge to Jury.
If the charge of a trial judge, taken as a whole, fairly lays down the law of the case, the failure to state or give some abstract legal proposition or definition applicable thereto in the technical language of the law, will not, in the absence of a special request, be prejudicial error.
Verdict Sustained by Evidence.
Evidence held to justify the verdict.
Munn & Thygeson, for appellant.
Humphrey Barton, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial after verdict in plaintiff's favor for $700. The action is one to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff's person and the destruction of his wagon, caused by being struck by a car operated by defendant, and, the complaint charges, by reason of the negligent and careless operation of such car. There are six assignments of error, but they embody but four principal questions. It is contended by counsel for appellants (1) that the evidence is insufficient to establish negligence on the part of defendant; (2) that it conclusively appears from the evidence that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence; (3) that the court erred in permitting witness Dr. Odendahl to give in evidence declarations of plaintiff as to his physical condition; and (4) that the court erred in its charge to the jury.
1. We have thoroughly examined and considered the evidence, and all that appellant's counsel have said on the subject, and reach the conclusion that a case was made for the jury on the question of defendant's negligence, as well as of plaintiff's contributory negligence. We regard the evidence tending to show contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff as quite strong, but in view of the fact that the collision resulting in plaintiff's injuries occurred at a point where cars on this line usually come to a stop to take on passengers, the further fact that...
To continue reading
Request your trial