Sweeney v. Poppenberger
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $15,000 for personal injuries. The answer to the amended complaint alleged that plaintiffs injuries were directly due to his failure to exercise ordinary care. The case was tried before Iíallam, J., who at the close of plaintiff’s case granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action. From an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, he appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Action to recover for personal injuries which, at the close of plaintiff’s case, was dismissed on motion of defendant, and plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial.
The facts are tersely stated by the trial court in a memorandum attached to the order denying a new trial substantially as follows:
Plaintiff was a plasterer in the employ of defendants. On the morning of the day of the accident in question he was directed to work upon a scaffold which had been set in position for the work of the day. The scaffold was about six and one-half feet high, and consisted of two frame horses…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Johnson v. RambergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Eicheler v. HanggiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Johnson v. KlarquistSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kommerstad v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913