Chille v. Howell

The defendants-appellants, Grimstad and his insurance carrier (the defendant Howell, although named as a respondent, has not appeared), contend that the trial court erred in that (1) it refused to grant a *494new trial in the interests of justice, and (2) in its application of the comparative-negligence statute.

At the close of the testimony counsel for Grimstad and his insurance carrier moved for directed verdict upon the ground that no causal negligence on the part of Grimstad had been established. The trial court ruled there was sufficient credible evidence to warrant a jury finding that…