Rowe v. Goldberg
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
*606OPINION
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for a new trial based on claims of evidentiary errors, the limiting of the scope of expert testimony, and the failure of the trial court to give a requested jury instruction. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Helen Rowe was employed by respondent Ruth K. Goldberg as a housekeeper. Rowe cleaned Goldberg’s home two times each month for eighteen months. On June 7, 1979, as she was leaving for the day, Rowe fell on the stairs at Goldberg’s home. At the time of the.fall, Rowe was carrying her cleaning supplies and her purse. She was…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Jenson v. Touche Ross & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- State v. HelterbridleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- State v. BillingtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Gleeman v. Oren TriplettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- Sorensen v. MaskiCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Behlke v. Conwed Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
- Barrera v. MuirCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- Hunt v. Regents of UniversityCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
- Rowe v. GoldbergCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989