Legal Opinion

Forsythe v. City of Thief River Falls

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 15, 1973No. 43401PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Peterson, Justice.

A new trial was ordered, on motion of plaintiff, because the trial court had not, in compliance with Rule 51, Rules of Civil Procedure,1 unequivocally informed counsel of its intention to *338instruct the jury on superseding cause, an omission which the trial court concluded was prejudicial error. Defendant appeals from that order. We affirm.

Plaintiff, as trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Bonnie Forsythe, decedent, brought a wrongful death action against the city of Thief River Falls for the drowning of Bonnie while swimming at defendant’s municipal beach. The jury found…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Robert T. Clegg v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
  2. Dunn v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1966
  3. Knutson v. Arrigoni Brothers Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
  4. Tyrill v. Alcoa Steamship CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1960

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Country Insurance v. Agricultural Development, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Country Insurance v. Agricultural Development, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Hardison, as Personal Representative of the Estate of SAMUEL WAYNE LERCH, JR. v. Asplundh Construction CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API