Peterson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Winona county, Start, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after verdict of $3,000 for plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Winona county, Start, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after verdict of $3,000 for plaintiff. The “representation as to the opinion of Dr., Clark,” mentioned in the opinion, was, as alleged in the reply, and. testified to by plaintiff, a representation that Dr. Clark, “the physi-. cian whom plaintiff had employed immediately after her injury, said; to defendant’s agent who procured her signature to said release, that her injuries would soon be cured with proper treatment.”
1Opinion of the CourtGtileillan, C. J.
Action for an injury to plaintiff’s person, caused, as plaintiff claims, by the negligence of defendant in respect to its duty as a common carrier of passengers to have a safe place for them to alight from its cars; plaintiff having been such a passenger, and having been injured while alighting from, or immediately after alighting from, the cars. After a denial of the allegations of fact consti-. tuting the cause of action, the answer alleges a release by plaintiff of the alleged cause of action in consideration of $225, paid by defendant to plaintiff. The plaintiff, in reply, admits the…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Peterson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Olson v. Court of HonorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Marple v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- Gibson v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Barrett v. MagnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.