Kinning v. Sutton

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Kinning v. Sutton

220 N.W.2d 485, 300 Minn. 555, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1400

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 26, 1974

Docket44507

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 220 N.W.2d 485 (Kinning v. Sutton) 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

Kinning v. Sutton, 220 N.W.2d 485, 300 Minn. 555, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1400 (Mich. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial as to the issue of damages. We affirm.

Plaintiff’s claim arises out of an automobile accident on November 4, 1967. The trial court directed the verdict in plaintiff’s favor on the issue of liability. The damage to plaintiff’s car was not an issue. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the exact amount of his medical expenses. No claim was made for loss of time. On this appeal plaintiff contends that the verdict was inadequate as no general damages were given and that the verdict was rendered under the influence of passion and prejudice.

A careful review of the record reveals that there was a sharp conflict in the medical evidence as to the nature and extent of plaintiff’s claimed injury.

It does not appear that the damages awarded were given under the *556 influence of passion and prejudice or that the verdict was so inadequate as to require the conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 111 N. W. 2d 526 (1961); Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277, 64 N. W. 2d 755 (1954).

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial as to the issue of damages. We affirm.

Plaintiff’s claim arises out of an automobile accident on November 4, 1967. The trial court directed the verdict in plaintiff’s favor on the issue of liability. The damage to plaintiff’s car was not an issue. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the exact amount of his medical expenses. No claim was made for loss of time. On this appeal plaintiff contends that the verdict was inadequate as no general damages were given and that the verdict was rendered under the influence of passion and prejudice.

A careful review of the record reveals that there was a sharp conflict in the medical evidence as to the nature and extent of plaintiff’s claimed injury.

It does not appear that the damages awarded were given under the *556 influence of passion and prejudice or that the verdict was so inadequate as to require the conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 111 N. W. 2d 526 (1961); Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277, 64 N. W. 2d 755 (1954).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 N.W.2d 485, 300 Minn. 555, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinning-v-sutton-minn-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack