Kalland v. City of Brainerd
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Crow Wing county to recover $30,000 for injuries received when riding in an automobile upon one of the streets in defendant city. The ease was tried before Stanton, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $10,000. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.
The plaintiff, a passenger in a hired automobile, was injured because of a defect in a street of the defendant city. He had a verdict and the city appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment *120or a new trial. There is no question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a finding that the city was negligent.
1. The plaintiff hired an automobile to take him and some companions a few miles out of Brainerd. He had no right of control over the movements of the automobile, nor did he assume any, nor were he and the driver engaged in a joint undertaking. Under our holdings…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Cotton v. Willmar & Sioux Falls Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Cunningham v. City of Thief River FallsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Follman v. City of MankatoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Carnegie v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- McDonald v. Mesaba Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hollister v. HinesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Grayson v. Irvmar Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959
- Manos v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Lundh v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Metz v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.New York Supreme Court · 1961
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.