Strasser v. Stabeck
| Decision Date | 29 July 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,680 - (195) |
| Citation | 127 N.W. 384,112 Minn. 90 |
| Parties | JOHN H. STRASSER v. H. N. STABECK |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $10,900 for personal injuries sustained because of defendant's negligence in operating his automobile. The substance of the complaint and answer is stated in the opinion. The reply was a general denial. The case was tried before Holt, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, he appealed. Reversed and new trial granted.
Unofficial maps and photographs admissible in evidence, when.
Unofficial maps, plats, and photographs are admissible in evidence, when verified by the testimony of witnesses having personal knowledge as to their correctness. If there be competent evidence fairly tending to establish such verification, the question of its sufficiency is one addressed to the discretion of the trial judge; but, if there be no such evidence, it is error to receive such documents in evidence.
Plat inadmissible.
It was error to receive in evidence in this case an unverified plat representing the exact location of moving objects in the street at the precise time the plaintiff was struck by defendant's automobile.
C. H Rossman, for appellant.
W. A. McDowell, for respondent.
Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the district court of the county of Hennepin denying his motion for a new trial after a verdict for the defendant in this a personal injury action. The complaint alleged that on November 7, 1908, at Eleventh street and Hennepin avenue in the city of Minneapolis, as the plaintiff was about to board a street car, he was struck and injured by the defendant's automobile, which was there negligently driven upon him. The answer denied any negligence on the part of the defendant, and alleged the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.
The evidence shows, without substantial conflict, that at the time and place of the accident a street car turned into Hennepin avenue going easterly, and when it reached the Eleventh street crossing it stopped to discharge passengers; that, when the car stopped, a large, heavy wagon or van, with a load, some twelve feet long, eight feet wide, and eight feet high above the rack on the van, was in Hennepin avenue, going in the same direction as the car, and approaching the rear end of the street car on the right-hand side; that plaintiff came out of a drug store at the intersection of the two streets, and gave the car conductor a signal that he desired to board the car; that he left the sidewalk on Hennepin avenue, passed in front of the approaching van, and when in the space between the wagon and street car he was run into by defendant's automobile, which was going in the same direction as the car and van, and was passing both. The evidence, however, was conflicting as to the rate of speed of the automobile and the precise position of the van and the plaintiff in the street at the exact time he was struck. These questions were material, and the trial court fairly submitted them to the jury.
There was evidence on the part of the plaintiff tending to show that, when he was hit by the automobile, he was just past the head of the team attached to the van, and about opposite the gates of the car toward which he was going. The defendant offered in evidence a plat drawn to a scale purporting on its face to be an exact representation or picture of the locus in quo, including the exact position of the movable objects in the street -- that is, the van, the automobile, and the street car -- at the precise time of the collision. The plat was received in evidence over the objection and exception of the plaintiff, and the ruling is here assigned as error.
The rule governing the admission in evidence of an unofficial map,...
To continue reading
Request your trial