Provinsal v. Peterson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $50,100 for injuries received through the alleged reckless driving of an automobile. The answer alleged negligence on the part of plaintiff. The case was tried before Eish, J., who when plaintiff rested granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, C. J.
Action for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant, in which defendant had a verdict and plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial.
It is contended in support of the appeal: (1) That the trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendant; and (2) that there was error in the exclusion of certain evidence offered by plaintiff in proof of the allegations of the complaint as to the negligence of defendant. Neither of these contentions is sustained.
*1231. There is no material dispute as to the facts of the ease, which are substantially as follows:…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Wright v. EngumWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- Estill v. BerryWashington Supreme Court · 1937
- Bowers v. Colonial Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Bruce v. CohnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Cook v. PersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.