Case ID: minn_147/html/0061-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dibell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EDNA JOHNSON, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET WILSON, DECEASED v. O. E. NORMAN.
    
    October 22, 1920.
    No. 21,880.
    Negligent operation oí automobile — verdict sustained’.
    1. The evidence in an action for personal injuries sustains a verdict for the plaintiff.
    Verdict not excessive.
    2. An award of $1,600 for the death of an eight year old child is not excessive.
    Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $7,500 for the death of plaintiff’s intestate. The -answer alleged that the accident which resulted in the death of the intestate was caused by her negligence. The case was tried before Bardwell, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $1,600. From an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      ■John G. Priebe, for appellant.
    
      Edward P. Garrett, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 179 N. W. 560.
    
   Dibell, J.

Action by the plaintiff, administratrix of her daughter, to recover damages for her death alleged to have been caused by the negligence of an employee of the defendant in the operation of an automobile. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the order denying his alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.

The record presents two questions, viz., whether a verdict for the plaintiff was justified by the evidence, and whether that rendered was excessive.

1. Whether defendant’s driver was negligent was for the jury. That the evidence does not sustain a finding that he was is hardly argued in the briefs. It cannot be successfully urged. A review of the evidence would serve no useful purpose. We have read it and find it sufficient.

2. The verdict was for $1,600. The child was eight years old. There is no ground for claiming it excessive. Gray v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. 87 Minn. 280, 91 N. W. 1106; O’Malley v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. 43 Minn. 289, 45 N. W. 440.

Some errors are claimed which are not raised by the record and we do not discuss them.

Order affirmed.