Soper v. Erickson
| Decision Date | 14 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | 26,039 |
| Citation | 215 N.W. 865,172 Minn. 377 |
| Parties | MAMIE SOPER v. E. HUGO ERICKSON |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Defendant appealed from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Nye, J., denying his alternative motion for judgment or a new trial. Affirmed.
Whether landlord was negligent and whether tenant was negligent were questions for jury.
1. Whether the defendant owner of an apartment building in which the plaintiff was a tenant was negligent in having in the hall a carpet with a hole in it, because of which the plaintiff tripped and was injured, and whether the plaintiff assumed the risk or was contributorily negligent, were questions for the jury.
Verdict for $1,000 not excessive.
2. The verdict was not excessive.
Damages 17 C.J. p. 1042 n. 28; p. 1099 n. 15.
Landlord and Tenant, 36 C.J. p. 253 n. 51; p. 254 n. 52, 55 New.
John N. Berg, for appellant.
F. D. Larrabee and Tautges & Wilder, for respondent.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries. There was a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,000. The defendant appeals from the order denying his alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.
1. The defendant is the owner of an apartment building in Minneapolis. On September 1, 1923, plaintiff rented an apartment on the third floor. She claims that on November 23, 1923, her right foot was caught in a hole just outside her apartment and that she fell down the stairway sustaining the injury for which she sues. Her claim for recovery is that this hold was negligently allowed to be in the carpet. The defendant denies that there was such a hole and claims that if there was and if the plaintiff sustained injury by it, she assumed the risk and was contributorily negligent.
The issue of negligence was for the jury. If the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses was believed -- and its truthfulness was for the jury -- the hole in the carpet was of a character to be dangerous to a tenant and one which should not have been permitted.
The claim of assumption of risk is the one mostly urged by the defendant as a defense. This was for the jury. Different minds might draw different conclusions whether a tenant making use of the hall, knowing what the plaintiff did about the hole, considering the condition as to light and darkness appreciated the risk and therefore assumed it. And what is said applies to contributory negligence if in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial