McIlvaine v. Delaney
| Decision Date | 29 December 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 29684.,No. 29685.,No. 29686.,29684.,29685.,29686. |
| Citation | 190 Minn. 401,252 N.W. 234 |
| Parties | McILVAINE et al. v. DELANEY. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Kenneth G. Brill, Judge.
Three suits by Ellen McIlvaine and others against Frank J. Delaney. The suits were tried together, and a verdict was returned for defendant in each case. From orders denying motions for new trial, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Frank E. McAllister, of St. Paul, for appellants.
Orr, Stark, Kidder & Freeman, of St. Paul, for respondent.
Three suits by three different plaintiffs against the defendant, Frank J. Delaney, to recover damages for personal injuries suffered in a collision between an automobile driven by one Harry McIlvaine, in which car plaintiffs were passengers, and an automobile driven by defendant. The three suits were tried together, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant in each case. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, and each appeals from the order denying the motion. The appeals have been consolidated and are presented here on one record.
The collision happened on July 24, 1932, out in the country near Long Lake, Minn., at the intersection of county roads numbered 146 and 45. Road No. 45 runs approximately east and west, and road No. 146 approximately north and south; the roads intersecting approximately at right angles. The McIlvaine car in which plaintiffs were riding was coming west on road No. 45. The car driven by defendant was coming south on road No. 146. There were "Slow" signs, but no "Stop" signs, on either road at this intersection. There was a post with direction signs at the northwest corner of the intersection, and some telephone and other poles on the northeast and southeast corners. The view at the northeast corner of the intersection was obstructed by some trees and brush, so that one coming from the north could not see towards the east on road No. 45 until within a few feet of the intersection, and one coming from the east could not see north on road No. 146 until coming close to the intersection. The two roads are each about 25 feet wide at this point. They widen at the intersection in curves for turning. The accident happened at about 8:30 a. m. on a bright, clear day.
1. (a) The first point urged is that the verdicts are so contrary to the evidence, and so lacking in support, that the trial court erred in denying a new trial. It is claimed that the evidence shows, as a matter of law, that the defendant was negligent and thereby caused the collision, or, at least, the evidence so greatly preponderates in favor of plaintiffs on those issues that it was error not to grant a new trial.
The verdicts being in defendant's favor, we are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to him. The burden of proof resting on the plaintiffs, the trial court was required to submit the question of defendant's negligence to the jury, unless the evidence conclusively established defendant's negligence as a matter of law, or unless a verdict in defendant's favor on that issue would be so manifestly against the weight of the evidence that no verdict or judgment in defendant's favor thereon could stand. Maroney v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 123 Minn. 480, 144 N. W. 149, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 756; Cramer v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 134 Minn. 61, 158 N. W. 796; Rechtzigel v. National Casualty Co., 143 Minn. 302, 173 N. W. 670.
(b) Considering the evidence under these rules, it is not such as to permit this court to interfere with the verdicts, approved, as they are, by the trial court. There is evidence reasonably sufficient to sustain the verdicts. Defendant intended to turn to his right at the intersection. He testified that he slowed down to 10 to 12 miles an hour as he got up to the intersection; that he then looked both ways and saw no car approaching; that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial