Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.

I concur in the result. I do not agree that the special finding is such that we can say that the general verdict was based upon it. It does not determine that the fault or negligence theire found was the proximate cause of the injury. Neither does "it eliminate the so-called “shim” theory, persistently advanced at the trial, which the opinion suggests is probably untenable. If the shim theory, without justification in the evidence, was submitted as a basis of recovery, or as an essential element through which the negligence specifically found operated, there should be a new trial, for we have…