Legal Opinion

Couture v. Novotny

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 21, 1973No. 43494PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Kelly, Justice.

This action was brought to recover for personal injuries resulting from a head-on collision. After the trial court instructed that defendant driver was negligent as a matter of law, the jury found no negligence on the part of plaintiff and assessed damages at $25,000. Defendants appeal from the denial of their motion for a new trial. We reverse.

Defendants raise two issues on appeal: First, whether the trial court erred in failing to give a requested instruction concerning plaintiff’s duty to mitigate damages through proper care and treatment of his injuries. Secondly, whether…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Gibbs v. AlmstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
  2. Otos v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
  3. Charles Stark, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. Shell Oil Company v. Highlands Insurance Company, Intervenor-Appellee-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
  4. Jenkins v. American Automobile Insurance CompanyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1959
  5. Maroney v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Michaud v. SteckinoSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
  2. Adee v. EvansonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  3. Independent School District No. 622 v. Keene Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
  4. Automatic Merchandisers, Inc. v. WardNevada Supreme Court · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API