Andersen v. Andersen

Appellant plaintiff contends (1) that Andersen’s negligence as to management and control, found by the jury, was causal as a matter of law; (2) that a traffic officer was erroneously permitted to state certain opinions; and (3) that evidence on an issue of non-co-operation was erroneously admitted and was prejudicial. For the reasons which follow, we affirm the judgment.

Causation. Plaintiff argues that the affirmative finding with respect to Andersen’s negligence and the negative finding with respect to causation are inconsistent. On motions after verdict, the trial court considered this…