Case Name: ANNA HENRIETTA HENDRICKSON v. CITY OF BENSON
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1918-03-28
Citations: 139 Minn. 511
Docket Number: No. 20,749
Parties: ANNA HENRIETTA HENDRICKSON v. CITY OF BENSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
ANNA HENRIETTA HENDRICKSON v. CITY OF BENSON.
March 28, 1918.
No. 20,749.
Municipal corporation — negligence — contributory negligence.
Evidence ample to support the verdict that defendant city was negligent in leaving an excavation in the street for a water main unguarded at night, and that plaintiff was not negligent. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Swift county to recover $15,000 for injuries received in falling into an unguarded trench. The answer alleged that plaintiff was negligent. The-case was tried before Qvale, X, who when plaintiff rested denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, and a jury which returned a verdict for $2,500. Prom an order 'denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
John I. Davis, for appellant.
Larrahee & Olson, for respondent.
Reported in 166 N. W. 1084.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff brought suit for personal injuries and recovered a verdict, and defendant appealed from an order denying a new trial.
On November 15, 1916, defendant began digging a trench along one of its streets for the purpose of laying a water main, and left the excavation unguarded during the following night. Plaintiff, while attempting to cross the street after dark that evening, fell into this excavation and sustained serious injuries. These facts are undisputed. Even conceding that plaintiff's ' testimony was shown to be inaccurate in certain details as to the sit uation at the place of the accident and as to the manner in which the accident happened, the evidence is ample to support the finding of negligence on the part of defendant and of the absence of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. The newly discovered evidence, as remarked by the trial court, is not of such a character as to warrant a new trial. No other questions are presented and the order is affirmed.