Legal Opinion

Foss v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 7, 1922No. 22,740PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.

Action for personal injuries. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. 'Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The motion was denied. There was'no motion for a new trial. The defendant appeals from the judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict.

The question is whether there was 'evidence from which a jury could find a verdict for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was working in the defendant’s shops at Havelock, Nebraska. An apprentice, for whose acts of negligence the defendant was liable under the Nebraska statute, was fitting pins into a fluting-iron. This fluting-iron, so far as…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Christianson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
  2. Anderson v. FieldingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
  3. Wallin v. Eastern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
  4. Sieber v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
  5. Groff v. Duluth Imperial Mill Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dellwo v. PearsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
  2. Geiger v. Simpson Methodist-Episcopal ChurchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
  3. Goneau v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
  4. Sayers Ex Rel. Sayers v. Beltrami CountyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
  5. Sayers Ex Rel. Sayers v. Beltrami CountyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API