Blondel v. St. Paul City Railway Co.

This is a personal injury ease, in which the plaintiff had a verdict for $200, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial. Two reasons are urged by the defendant why the order should be reversed:

1. That the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, because it shows that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that he was a passenger on an electric car on the defendant’s street-railway line; that there was a sharp curve in the track at Marshall and Prior avenues, in the city of St. Paul, and that, when the car…