Wendt v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 24 July 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 18661[185].,18661[185]. |
| Citation | 148 N.W. 568,126 Minn. 509 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | WENDT v. BOWMAN & LIBBY. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Wilbur F. Booth, Judge.
Action by Sarah Wendt against Bowman & Libby. Verdict for plaintiff, and, from denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Plaintiff was injured by being struck by an automobile. Peritonitis followed and phlebitis and pneumonia supervened. Held:
That the evidence sustains the finding that the injury was caused by the negligence of defendant without contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff.
That there is evidence to support the finding that these diseases resulted as a consequence of the injury.
That the verdict is not so excessive as to justify this court in interfering therein.
That the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a new trial for misconduct of plaintiff's attorney.
That there were no errors in the charge to the jury. Watson & Abernethy, of St. Paul, for appellants.
Frank H. Morrill, of Minneapolis, for respondent.
This is an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by being struck by an automobile at a street crossing in the city of Minneapolis. Plaintiff had a verdict. Defendant made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and, in case such motion should be denied, that a new trial be granted. Both motions were denied and defendant appealed.
[1] The evidence made the charge of negligence on the part of defendant and the countercharge of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff questions for determination by the jury, and is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
[2] Two weeks after the accident plaintiff was taken to a hospital where an operation was performed. The operation disclosed that her bowels were floating in pus and that a Fallopian tube was diseased. This and the pus were removed. It appeared at the operation that she was suffering from peritonitis. Not long thereafter phlebitis and pneumonia also developed. Whether these diseases resulted from the injuries sustained in the accident or from independent causes was sharply contested and became the principal issue at the trial. The testimony of the attending physician strongly supported the contention of plaintiff. The testimony of two experts called by defendant strongly supported the contention of defendant. Where a question involving the weight of evidence has been determined by the verdict of a jury and such verdict has been approved by the trial court, this court is rarely justified in interfering therewith even if its opinion as to the fact does not accord with that of the jury. Defendant insists that the attending physician based his conclusions upon conjecture merely, and not upon facts established by the evidence; and that the case is similar to and governed by the case of Mageau v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 106 Minn. 375, 119 N. W. 200, in which Justice Elliott remarked:
‘The difficulty with the plaintiff's case is that it rests entirely upon conjectures and beliefs, which do not seem to have any substantial, established facts back of them.’
In that case peritonitis developed after a stillborn child had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial