Ruud v. Grimm

This action involves two consecutive rear-end automobile collisions. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff against defendant Grimm involved in the first collision, but not against defendant Strawn involved in the second *1269collision. The appellant, Grimm, will be referred to as appellant, defendant Strawn as the second defendant.

Appellant urges four grounds for reversal: (1) That the evidence ‘as to the cause of the injury is uncertain and is insufficient to show his negligence was the proximate cause of ■the injury; (2) that plaintiff’s pleading and evidence do not support the submission of…