Rosenbaum v. Fueller

52 Colo. 638
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedApril 15, 1912
DocketNo. 6895
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 52 Colo. 638 (Rosenbaum v. Fueller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rosenbaum v. Fueller, 52 Colo. 638 (Colo. 1912).

Opinion

Mr, Justice Gabbert

delivered the opinion of the court-:

Plaintiff in error brought suit against defendant in error to recover damages caused by an automobile driven by the defendant colliding with a buggy in which she was riding. At the conclusion of the testimony on the part of the plaintiff, a motion for a non-suit was interposed and denied. The defendant then introduced his' testimony, and at the conclusion of all the evidence the defendant moved for a directed verdict in his favor, which was sustained. From a verdict and judgment accordingly, plaintiff brings the case here for review on error.

It is unnecessary to review the testimony in detail, it being sufficient to state, generally, that the evidence established that plaintiff was severely injured, and that there was testimony tending to prove that the negligence of the defendant caused the collision, while there was also testimony to the effect that the negligence of the plaintiff caused the two vehicles to collide. Such being the status of the testimony, the cause should have been [639]*639submitted to the jury to determine under appropriate instructions which party was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the collision. In a cause on trial before a jury, if there is substantial evidence tending to establish a cause of action, or the defendant’s defense, it is error for the court to direct a verdict, because it is not for the court to judge of the sufficiency of the evidence.—Lebanon M. Co. v. Cons. R. M. Co., 6 Colo. 371.

The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and Remanded.

Mr. Justice Musser and Mr. Justice Hiee concur.

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

Related

People in the Interest of Mal
592 P.2d 415 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1976)
Buchholz v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
311 P.2d 717 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1957)
General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Cohen
203 P. 656 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 Colo. 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenbaum-v-fueller-colo-1912.