Case ID: minn_179/html/0461-01.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

CARRIE ANDERSON v. JOHN AMBROISE.
    
    March 7, 1930.
    No. 27,687.
    
      Whipple & Atmore and L. K. Eaton, for appellant.
    
      Theodore Hollister and John Swinland, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 229 N. W. 579.
    
   Per Curiam.

In this personal injury action plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant appeals from the order denying his alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding or a new trial.

The case has been tried twice. The first trial resulted in a verdict for defendant, but on appeal there was a reversal of the order denying a new trial. 174 Minn. 481, 219 N. W. 769. We considered then that there were fact issues as to negligence and contributory-negligence but reversed because of prejudicial error. We need not restate the facts, which are sufficiently summarized in the former opinion. The evidence for plaintiff, believed by the jury, leaves the case as to the facts just about as it ivas before — enough so at least to make the former decision the law of the case. We fin’d no reason for disturbing the verdict.

The question whether defendant was covered by casualty insurance was made too much of at the opening of the trial. But for lack of proper objection at the time and by reason of the character of their own participation in the proceedings, counsel for defendant cannot now predicate prror- on what occurred. There seemed to be a question as to whether a policy which had been issued to defendant was in force. The learned trial judge ivas obviously right in refusing to litigate that issue.

The assignments of error based on the charge are without merit. So far as defendant’s requests for instructions state the laiv their substance was given the jury.

Affirmed.