Kotefka v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Kamsey county against defendant railway company, Dennis O. Kurley and Henry G. Ofelt, to recover $25,000 for personal injuries. The separate answers of defendants alleged contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Kamsey county against defendant railway company, Dennis O. Kurley and Henry G. Ofelt, to recover $25,000 for personal injuries. The separate answers of defendants alleged contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. The case was tried before Kelly, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $12,500. From orders denying defendants’ separate motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and denying their motions for a new trial if plaintiff should consent to a reduction of the verdict to $9,000, they separately appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtSimpson, J.
This is an action brought by plaintiff to recover damages for an injury which he received while working as a switchman in the employ of the defendant in its yards in East St. Paul. Upon the trial plaintiff had a verdict. Erom an order denying its alternative motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, defendant appeals, and here urges that the evidence submitted on the trial wholly fails to show that plaintiff’s injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant, and that the evidence does clearly show that it was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff himself.
The…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cruikshank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Joyce v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Floan v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Graham v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Magliani v. Minnesota Transfer Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Daily v. St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1915