Legal Opinion

Cullen v. Pearson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 2, 1934No. Nos. 29,797, 29,798PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion

There is nothing in the claim now made that the opinion herein shifts the burden of proof in a negligence case onto the defendant to prove that the accident happened without his fault. The rule that the burden of proof on the question of negligence rests upon the plaintiff claiming it, and does not shift, is so well known that it was not deemed necessary again to restate the rule. All that is decided by the opinion is that the facts and circumstances shown were sufficient to justify the jury in finding that defendant was negligent and thereby caused the accident. That statement did not cast…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Johnson v. BoschSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  2. White v. CochraneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
  3. Rye v. KingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Cullen v. PearsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API