Groh v. W. O. Krahn, Inc.

Appellant contends that the court erred : (1) In refusing to hold, as a matter of law, that plaintiff assumed the risk of his host’s negligent driving. (2) In finding that *665the plaintiff was emancipated at the time of the accident. (3) In refusing to hold that plaintiff could not maintain an action against his father. (4) In refusing to hold, as a matter of law, that the servant of the defendant W. O. Krahn, Inc., was guilty of negligence proximately causing the collision. (5) In denying the motion of the defendant Lawrence L. Groh for a new trial. Reference will be made to the errors assigned…