Case ID: neb_84/html/0544-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fawcett, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Florence Shirley, appellee, v. City of Minden, appellant.
    Filed May 21, 1909.
    No. 15,726.
    Personal Injury: Negligence': Question fok Just. "Issues as to the existence of negligence and contributory negligence, and as to tbe proximate cause of an injury, are for the jury to determine, when the evidence as to the facts is conflicting, and where different minds might reasonably draw different conclusions as to these questions from the facts established.” City of Omaha v. Houlihan, 72 Neb. 326.
    Appeal from the district court for Kearney county: Harry S. Dungan, Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      M. D. King and O. P. Anderbery, for appellant.
    
      Adams é Adams, contra.
    
   Fawcett, J.

Plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by falling upon a defective sidewalk in defendant city. The answer is a general denial, coupled with a plea of contributory negligence, which is denied in the reply. The jury returned a . verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $500, and from a judgment entered thereon this appeal is prosecuted.

Defendant in its brief assigns but two grounds for reversal of the judgment: (a) That the evidence is insufficient to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. (6) That the evidence conclusively establishes contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. It would serve no good purpose to set out the evidence here. It is sufficient to say that we have carefully examined the entire record, and find that the case was properly submitted to the jury on both grounds. ‘ While the evidence is somewhat meager upon the second ground, it is such that we cannot disturb the verdict.

The judgment of the district court is therefore

Affirmed.