Ober v. Wilkens

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Ober v. Wilkens

202 N.W.2d 877, 295 Minn. 525, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1140

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 8, 1972

DocketNo. 43550

StatusPublished

This text of 202 N.W.2d 877 (Ober v. Wilkens) 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

Ober v. Wilkens, 202 N.W.2d 877, 295 Minn. 525, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1140 (Mich. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendants in this personal injury action appeal from the denial of their motion for a new trial, questioning only the damages in the amount of $36,379 awarded to plaintiff Harlan E. Ober. Defendants contend that the jury’s verdict was based upon inadmissible evidence as to plaintiff’s loss of future earning capacity and was therefore the product of bias and prejudice. Upon a careful consideration of the record, we are persuaded that the challenged evidence was not inadmissible and that in light of both his special and general damages, including a permanent partial disability of the spine, the award to plaintiff, although generous, was not as a matter of law excessive.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendants in this personal injury action appeal from the denial of their motion for a new trial, questioning only the damages in the amount of $36,379 awarded to plaintiff Harlan E. Ober. Defendants contend that the jury’s verdict was based upon inadmissible evidence as to plaintiff’s loss of future earning capacity and was therefore the product of bias and prejudice. Upon a careful consideration of the record, we are persuaded that the challenged evidence was not inadmissible and that in light of both his special and general damages, including a permanent partial disability of the spine, the award to plaintiff, although generous, was not as a matter of law excessive.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 N.W.2d 877, 295 Minn. 525, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ober-v-wilkens-minn-1972.