Northrup v. Hayward
| Decision Date | 02 November 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,904 - (46) |
| Citation | 109 N.W. 241,99 Minn. 299 |
| Parties | CHARLES F. NORTHRUP v. WILLIAM W. HAYWARD |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $5,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Brooks, J and a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $2,500. From an order denying a motion for a new trial on condition that plaintiff stipulate to accept a reduction of the verdict to $2,000, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Master and Servant -- Verdict.
In this, a personal injury action, held, that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict to the effect that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant, and not by that of an independent contractor; that the trial court did not err in refusing a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence; and, further, that the damages as reduced are not excessive.
A. D Smith, T. D. Schall, and F. E. Hobbs, for appellant.
F. D. Larrabee, for respondent.
Personal injury action. Verdict for the plaintiff for $2,500. The trial court made its order denying the defendant's motion for judgment and his alternative motion for a new trial on condition that the plaintiff stipulate to reduce his verdict to $2,000. He so stipulated, and the defendant appealed from the order. The assignments of error raise three questions: Is the verdict sustained by the evidence? If so, was the defendant entitled to a new trial on the ground of newly-discovered evidence? Are the damages as reduced excessive?
1. It appears quite conclusively from the record that the defendant was on November 18, 1904, the owner of certain premises in the city of Minneapolis; that the plaintiff was then engaged in shingling the roof of one of the buildings thereon, and that without fault on his part he was thrown from the scaffold on which he was standing while engaged in his work to the ground, a distance of some fifteen feet, and thereby seriously injured; that the direct cause of his injury was the defective construction and condition of the scaffold; and, further, that he was fairly entitled to recover damages for his injury from either the defendant or his contractor.
It was the claim of the defendant on the trial that he let the work of shingling the building to an independent contractor, and had no control or supervision whatever over the work or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial