Powers v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 30 November 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 20592.,20592. |
| Citation | 165 N.W. 231,138 Minn. 407 |
| Parties | POWERS v. WILSON. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Frederick N. Dickson, Judge.
Action by Mary Powers against Ole O. Wilson. Judgment for plaintiff. From an order denying his motion notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appeals. Order affirmed, on condition that plaintiff consent to a reduction of the verdict; otherwise, new trial ordered.
Syllabus by the Court
In this action to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in a collision with defendant's automobile, it is held:
The evidence was sufficient to take to the jury the questions of the negligence of the driver and the contributory negligence of plaintiff, and to sustain the verdict for plaintiff.
The damages are excessive.
A claim of error in the charge considered, and not sustained. Denegre & McDermott and Harry S. Stearns, all of St. Paul, for appellant.
John J. Kirby, of St. Paul, for respondent.
Plaintiff sustained personal injuries by being run down by defendant's automobile, driven by his son, and in this action to recover damages for such injuries received a verdict of $12,500. The case is before us on defendant's appeal from an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
[1] There is no claim that defendant is not responsible for the negligence of his son. It is contended that the evidence of negligence on the part of the son was not sufficient to take that issue to the jury, that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and that the damages are excessive. There is also claim of error in the court's charge.
A brief statement of the facts follows: Plaintiff was employed at a factory on the south side of University avenue, just west of Syndicate avenue, in St. Paul. On September 6, 1916, at about 9 p. m., she left her work to go to her home, which was north of University avenue, crossing that street near the west side of Syndicate avenue. Other employés of the factory left at the same time. As plaintiff came to University avenue she looked both ways, saw lights in both directions some distance away, and proceeded to cross the street. She succeeded in crossing the two street car tracks in safety, and was then struck by defendant's automobile coming from the east, driven by defendant's son, a young man of 17. It was a rainy night. The wind shield of the car was in place, so covered with mist that the driver could see little through it. The lights of the automobile were dim, and not of much assistance to the driver in his view ahead, or much of a warning to pedestrians. There was evidence that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saunders v. Yellow Cab Corporation
...126 Minn. 509, 148 N. W. 568; Smith v. Bruce, 131 Minn. 51, 154 N. W. 659; Hade v. Simmons, 132 Minn. 344, 157 N. W. 506; Powers v. Wilson, 138 Minn. 407, 165 N. W. 231; Roberts v. Ring, 143 Minn. 151, 173 N. W. 437; Offerman v. Yellow Cab Co., 144 Minn. 478, 175 N. W. 537; Gibson v. Gray M......
-
Silva v. Waldie.
...were questions, not of law for the trial judge, but of fact for a jury.” A similar question was before the court in Powers v. Wilson, 138 Minn. 407, 165 N.W. 231, 232. We quote from it: “As plaintiff came to University avenue she looked both ways, saw lights in both directions some distance......
- Wold v. Wold
- Wold v. Wold