Pete v. Lampi

• Decision Date: 17 April 1925
• Docket Number: No. 24421.,24421.
• Citation: 162 Minn. 497,203 N.W. 447
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: PETE v. LAMPI et al.

203 N.W. 447

162 Minn. 497

PETE v. LAMPI et al.

No. 24421.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 17, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Bert Fesler, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth Pete against Jacob Lampi and others. After verdict for plaintiff, defendants appeal from orders denying respective motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for new trial. Affirmed.

Victor H. Gran, George H. Spear, and John J. Fee, all of Duluth, and O. N. Davies, of Minneapolis, for appellants.

John Jenswold and John D. Jenswold, both of Duluth, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

Defendant Lampi conducted a saloon in the city of Ely for several years. Defendant Southern Surety Company was the surety on his bond for the year beginning June 5, 1915, and also for the year beginning June 5, 1916. Defendant Ætna Casualty & Surety Co., was the surety on his bond for the year beginning June 5, 1917. Each of the three bonds was for the sum of $2,000. On December 29, 1917, Herman Pete died while in a drunken stupor in Lampi's saloon. Plaintiff, his wife, alleging that his death resulted from intoxication caused by liquor illegally furnished him by Lampi, and that she had been injured in her means of support by such intoxication, brought this action for damages under section 3200 of the General Statutes of 1913, found as section 3239 in the General Statutes of 1923. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff. A new trial was granted by this court. Pete v. Lampi, 150 Minn. 423, 185 N. W. 653, to which reference is made for a more extended statement of the facts. The new trial was granted for the reason that the jury had been permitted to allow damages for loss of support during the lifetime of Herman Pete as well as for the loss of support resulting from his death, and that the evidence failed to show any loss of support during his lifetime. At the second trial, damages were allowed only for the loss of support resulting from his death. The jury returned a verdict against Lampi for $8,750, and against the Southern Surety Company for $4,000 of that amount, and against the Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. for $2,000 of that amount. The defendants appealed from orders denying their respective motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.

The evidence at the second trial does not differ much from that at the first trial. Dr. George T. Ayers, who had known Herman Pete for many years, gave the only expert testimony at either trial. As deputy coroner, he had taken charge of the body and caused an autopsy to be made. At the first trial, he was absent but his deposition had been taken and was read. At the second trial he was present and testified; and his testimony as to the cause of death although in full accord with his former deposition, covered the matter more completely and with greater detail. We see no occasion for discussing the evidence further than to say that it is more favorable to plaintiff than at the first trial and that we find it sufficient to sustain the verdicts.

The court gave the jury the correct rule for determining whether Lampi was liable, and, if so, for determining the amount of his liability. They found a verdict against him for a sum exceeding the aggregate amount of all the bonds.

The court charged the jury to the effect that if illegal sales made by Lampi during the period covered by a particular bond contributed "in a substantial degree to produce the ailment which caused the death of Herman Pete," the surety upon such bond was liable to plaintiff for the damages awarded against Lampi, not exceeding the amount of the bond. The jury found a verdict against the Southern Surety Company for the full amount of its two bonds, and against the Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. for the full amount of its one bond, thereby necessarily finding that illegal sales during each of the three periods had contributed toward causing the death of Herman Pete.

Defendants contend that the rule applied by the court is the rule applicable in the case of joint tort-feasors, and that this case does not come within that rule. We...