Strand v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Decision Date | 02 August 1907 |
| Docket Number | 15,078 - (49) |
| Citation | 112 N.W. 987,101 Minn. 85 |
| Parties | OSCAR F. STRAND v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Original Opinion Filed May 17, 1907
Defective Appliances.
The evidence is sufficient to justify the jury in finding that the boiler of the engine in question was defective when turned over to the engineer and fireman, that appellant was negligent in not repairing the same, and that the explosion which caused respondent's injuries was the proximate result of such negligence.
New Trial.
The trial court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial upon the ground that appellant was taken by surprise at the trial by the testimony of certain witnesses whose depositions might have been taken previously in connection with other witnesses.
New Trial.
No error was committed in refusing to grant a new trial on account of alleged newly discovered evidence.
Charge to Jury.
No reversible error was committed in charging the jury.
Evidence -- Record Made by Servant.
Whether records made by an employee in the regular course of business are properly verified, so as to entitle them to admission as original evidence for the purpose of corroborating a witness, is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. It does not conclusively appear that the court erred in refusing to admit in evidence, upon the ground that it was not properly verified, a certain paper purporting to be a report of the examination of a certain engine by a boiler maker in appellant's shops.
Excessive Verdict.
A verdict of $30,000 held excessive in the sum of $10,000, and a new trial is granted unless respondent consents to reduce the verdict to $20,000.
On August 2, 1907, the following opinion was filed:
On Reargument
A reargument was granted herein upon the question whether or not the trial court erred in refusing to receive in evidence the inspector's report, which is designated in the record as No. 9. We have further considered the question in connection with the briefs filed on the rehearing and have reached the conclusion that the trial court did not err in rejecting the exhibit. The former opinion is therefore adhered to.
To continue reading
Request your trial