Field v. Deephaven Bus Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Field v. Deephaven Bus Co.

123 N.W.2d 915, 266 Minn. 589, 1963 Minn. LEXIS 768

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 18, 1963

DocketNo. 38,997

StatusPublished

This text of 123 N.W.2d 915 (Field v. Deephaven Bus Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Field v. Deephaven Bus Co., 123 N.W.2d 915, 266 Minn. 589, 1963 Minn. LEXIS 768 (Mich. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole issue presented for review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the findings of negligence and proximate cause against defendant’s driver in an action to recover property damages to an automobile owned by plaintiff and operated by her daughter as a bailee. Following trial to the municipal court of Minneapolis, the court found that the collision was caused by the concurrent negligence of both drivers with respect to sp'eed and also by the bus driver’s negligence with respect to control. Plaintiff was awarded damages and defendant’s posttrial motion to amend the findings or for a new trial was denied.

A review of the evidenc'e as a whole provides no justification for holding that the findings are “clearly erroneous” under Rule 52.01 of the Municipal Court Rules of Civil Procedure but, rather, convincingly demonstrates that the findings are reasonably supported by the evidence, thereby requiring us to uphold the decision reached below. 1 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 411; Wright, Minnesota Rules, pp. 293 to 297.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The sole issue presented for review is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the findings of negligence and proximate cause against defendant’s driver in an action to recover property damages to an automobile owned by plaintiff and operated by her daughter as a bailee. Following trial to the municipal court of Minneapolis, the court found that the collision was caused by the concurrent negligence of both drivers with respect to sp'eed and also by the bus driver’s negligence with respect to control. Plaintiff was awarded damages and defendant’s posttrial motion to amend the findings or for a new trial was denied.

A review of the evidenc'e as a whole provides no justification for holding that the findings are “clearly erroneous” under Rule 52.01 of the Municipal Court Rules of Civil Procedure but, rather, convincingly demonstrates that the findings are reasonably supported by the evidence, thereby requiring us to uphold the decision reached below. 1 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 411; Wright, Minnesota Rules, pp. 293 to 297.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 N.W.2d 915, 266 Minn. 589, 1963 Minn. LEXIS 768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/field-v-deephaven-bus-co-minn-1963.