Case ID: minn_296/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WEBER ELECTRIC COMPANY v. TUMINELLY, INC. DORSO TRAILER SALES, INC., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT.
    206 N. W. 2d 656.
    April 20, 1973
    No. 43564.
    
      Wiese & Cox and Paul G. Neimann, for appellant.
    
      James G. Paulos, for respondent.
    Heard before Knutson, C. J., and Otis, Kelly, and Schultz, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by a third-party defendant, Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc., from an order denying it a new trial. The only issue is whether it was error not to grant appellant a jury trial. We hold that it was and reverse.

It is undisputed that both a jury trial and a court trial were designated in various notes of issue. Although the respondent third-party plaintiff supports appellant’s contention that appellant had specifically asked the court for a jury trial, the court had no recollection of the motion and the record was silent on the subject.

Rule 38.01, Rules of Civil Procedure, entitled the parties to a jury trial unless the right was waived under Rule 38.02. The latter provision specifies the manner of waiver as follows:

“In actions arising on contract, and by permission of the court in other actions, any party thereto may waive a jury trial in the manner following:
(1) By failing to appear at the trial;
(2) By written consent, by the party or his attorney, filed with the clerk;
(3) By oral consent in open court, entered in the minutes.”

Under the circumstances, we conclude that the appellant has not consented to waive a jury and should have been granted a new trial.

Reversed.