Case ID: minn_124/html/0084-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hallam, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IRVING M. WEISS v. P. N. PETERSON.
    
    December 19, 1913.
    Nos. 18,283 — (169).
    Grant of new trial — reversal on appeal.
    Where a trial court makes a general order granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is not justified by the evidence, such order will not bo reversed unless the evidence is manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict. Applying this rule to the evidence in this case, the order appealed from should be affirmed.
    Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $11,200 for personal injury. The case was tried before Olin B. Lewis, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. Erom an order granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
    
      Morton Barrows, for appellant.
    
      Harvey O. Sargeant and J. W. Finch, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 144 N. W. 450.
    
   Hallam, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of the premature starting of a passenger elevator.

The only testimony as to the circumstances of the accident was that of plaintiff and one other witness produced by him. Defendant elicited evidence of circumstances tending to discredit this testimony, and the jury found for defendant. The trial court granted a new trial “upon the ground that the verdict is not justified by the evidence.” The propriety of this order is the only question before us for review. The record presents no other.

The attitude of this court on such appeals is well settled. Such an order will not be reversed unless the evidence is manifestly and palpably in favor of the verdict. Marsh v. Webber, 13 Minn. 99 (109); Hicks v. Stone, 13 Miim. 398 (434); Hull v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. 116 Minn. 349, 356, 133 N. W. 852.

It would serve no useful purpose to review the evidence in detail. We have examined it with care, and we are convinced that it is not such as to warrant us in. disturbing the order of the trial court.

Order affirmed.