Walker v. Duluth Street Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Walker v. Duluth Street Railway Co.

130 N.W. 1026, 114 Minn. 238, 1911 Minn. LEXIS 1075

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 28, 1911

DocketNos. 17,022— (74)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 N.W. 1026 (Walker v. Duluth Street Railway 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

Walker v. Duluth Street Railway Co., 130 N.W. 1026, 114 Minn. 238, 1911 Minn. LEXIS 1075 (Mich. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Simpson, J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries. A fall upon the street in the city of Duluth resulted in a simple fracture in the plaintiff’s leg near the hip joint. The claim of the plaintiff, to sustain which evidence was offered upon the trial, was that his fall was caused by the negligent starting of one of the defendant’s cars, on which he was a passenger, while he was in the act of alighting therefrom. Upon the trial, the defendant submitted evidence tending to show that the plaintiff fell after he had alighted from the car, and that his fall was not caused by any movement of the car. This question, upon which the evidence was conflicting, was fairly submitted to the jury, and its determination in favor of the plaintiff is sustained by the evidence.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $3,355. The trial judge determined that such verdict is not excessive. A consideration of the evidence showing the extent of the injury, the attendant pain and suffering, the resulting incapacity, and the expense necessarily caused thereby, leads us to the conclusion that the verdict is not excessive.

Dpon the affidavits submitted, the defendant was not -entitled to a new trial on the ground of accident or surprise or newly discovered evidence.

[240]*240No other questions are raised by defendant’s assignment of errors. The order made denying defendant’s'motion for a new trial is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Simpson, J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries. A fall upon the street in the city of Duluth resulted in a simple fracture in the plaintiff’s leg near the hip joint. The claim of the plaintiff, to sustain which evidence was offered upon the trial, was that his fall was caused by the negligent starting of one of the defendant’s cars, on which he was a passenger, while he was in the act of alighting therefrom. Upon the trial, the defendant submitted evidence tending to show that the plaintiff fell after he had alighted from the car, and that his fall was not caused by any movement of the car. This question, upon which the evidence was conflicting, was fairly submitted to the jury, and its determination in favor of the plaintiff is sustained by the evidence.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $3,355. The trial judge determined that such verdict is not excessive. A consideration of the evidence showing the extent of the injury, the attendant pain and suffering, the resulting incapacity, and the expense necessarily caused thereby, leads us to the conclusion that the verdict is not excessive.

Dpon the affidavits submitted, the defendant was not -entitled to a new trial on the ground of accident or surprise or newly discovered evidence.

[240]*240No other questions are raised by defendant’s assignment of errors. The order made denying defendant’s'motion for a new trial is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 N.W. 1026, 114 Minn. 238, 1911 Minn. LEXIS 1075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-duluth-street-railway-co-minn-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack