Thoorsell v. City of Virginia
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $10,000 for personal injuries. The answer among other matters alleged that defendant is a municipal corporation subject to the terms of chapter 84 A, G. S. 1913, and acts amendatory thereof, known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act; that the plaintiff herein was an employee of one John Mesberg in defendant city; that the injury complained of was received in the course of and arising out of his said employment; that…
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $10,000 for personal injuries. The answer among other matters alleged that defendant is a municipal corporation subject to the terms of chapter 84 A, G. S. 1913, and acts amendatory thereof, known as the Workmen’s Compensation Act; that the plaintiff herein was an employee of one John Mesberg in defendant city; that the injury complained of was received in the course of and arising out of his said employment; that said John Mesberg and the plaintiff herein were both subject to the terms of that act. The case was tried before Hughes,…
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, J.
Plaintiff recovered a verdict of $2,500 for the injuries received in the accident involved in this case. Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for judgment non obstante, or for a new trial.
The usual questions were argued, negligence, contributory negligence, damages. The following is an outline of the facts as the jury was justified in finding them:
Central avenue, one of the principal streets in the defendant city, has a bithulithic pavement. September 10, 1915, a piece of this pavement was taken up to enable a property owner to install a water pipe. The hole thus made started…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Baker v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- City of Louisville v. HaughCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
- Finnegan v. City of Sioux CitySupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Finch v. Village of BangorMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
- Maloy v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Lamb v. South Unit Jehovah's WitnessesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Brittain v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
- Hot Springs Plumbing & Heating Co. v. WallaceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1933
- Squillace v. Village of Mountain IronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
- Nichols v. Village of BuhlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.