Zurko v. Gilquist
| Decision Date | 08 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 36092,36092 |
| Citation | 62 N.W.2d 351,241 Minn. 1 |
| Parties | ZURKO v. GILQUIST. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A court's charge to the jury must be considered as a whole. In construing a jury charge as a whole it must be scrutinized and tested from the standpoint of its total impact or impression upon the jury. If as a whole its impact gives the jury an erroneous conception of the controlling principles of law, then it cannot be defended and found sufficient as a whole by an analysis of the technical relations of its various provisions to each other when such technical relationships would not reasonably have been apparent to the jury.
2. In construing a charge as a whole its adequacy in correctly setting forth controlling principles of law is to be measured by the meaning it reasonably conveys to the jurors who hear it only once and have no opportunity to examine it in written form. Even though a jury charge may by close inspection be found to be technically correct in its entirety, a new trial should be granted if its impact upon the jury is likely to convey, and reasonably does convey, an erroneous understanding of controlling principles of law.
Held that, under the instructions here, the jury could have received the erroneous impression that it was proper for defendant to drive up to 50 miles per hour.
Emerson Hopp, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Hansen & Hazen, St. Paul, for respondent.
This is an action to recover damages for the death of Maxim Zurko brought by the special administratrix of his estate against Roger G. Gilquist and Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. An action for funeral expenses brought by decedent's widow was incorporated in this action. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, the court directed a verdict in favor of Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. At the close of the trial, the jury found for Roger G. Gilquist. Plaintiff appeals from the order of the district court denying her motion for a new trial against Gilquist only.
Between nine and ten o'clock on the evening of October 29, 1950, at the outskirts of Cambridge, Minnesota, decedent got off a northbound bus of Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. According to the undisputed testimony of the bus driver, he had driven the bus 'practically all the way off' the paved portion of the highway and onto the right shoulder in order to discharge the passenger. After leaving by the door at the right front of the bus, decedent moved around behind the bus and then either walked or ran onto the north-south highway where he was struck and killed by Gilquist's southbound car.
Gilquist testified that, as he neared the scene of the accident, he saw the bus stop on the edge of the highway but that he did not know that passengers were being discharged until he got closer to the bus and saw decedent come out from behind it. He conceded that when he first sighted the bus he was traveling about 50 miles per hour but testified that he then slowed to a speed of about 45 miles per hour. In answer to the question 'When did you apply your brakes?' Gilquist responded, 'Immediately when I saw him (decedent) start running, I applied my brakes.' He testified that he was then about 40 feet from decedent.
Plaintiff makes numerous assignments of error. It is our opinion that we need discuss only the one which deals with the final instruction to the jury. The trial court charged the jury in part:
1--2. These portions of the charge had reference to the fact that the section of the highway involved had a posted speed limit of 50 miles per hour at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County of Todd, Minn. v. Loegering
...based on that Act and the second, confusing, because it expressed modification of the rule referred to in the first. Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 62 N.W. 2d 351 (1954); Cantieny v. Friebe, 341 Mich. 143, 67 N.W.2d 102 (1954) and Kollodge v. F. and L. Appliances, Inc., 248 Minn. 357, 80 N......
-
Ritchie v. Burton, 7396
...a question of the technical correctness of the instructions, but, in the language of the Supreme Court of Minnesota in Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 62 N.W.2d 351, at loc. cit. 354, 'On the other hand, in construing a jury charge as a whole, it must be scrutinized and tested from the stan......
-
Fieve v. Emmeck
...of very careful prudent men,' or 'the highest possible care consistent with the nature of the undertaking."5 Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 62 N.W.2d 351.6 Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 62 N.W.2d 351; Froden v. Ranzenberger, 230 Minn. 366, 41 N.W.2d 807.7 See, also, Storey v. Weinberg, 2......
-
Donald v. Moses
...and, moreover, as important issues for the jury to determine. See, Francis v. Wilson, 249 Minn. 508, 83 N.W.2d 248; Zurko v. Gilquist, 241 Minn. 1, 62 N.W.2d 351; Adelmann v. Elk River Lbr. Co., 242 Minn. 388, 65 N.W.2d 661; Storey v. Weinberg, 226 Minn. 48, 31 N.W.2d 912; Greene v. Mathiow......