Case Name: MARTIN EVENSTAD v. CARL STEVENS
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1913-02-07
Citations: 120 Minn. 532
Docket Number: Nos. 17,929—(217)
Parties: MARTIN EVENSTAD v. CARL STEVENS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 532–533

Head Matter:
MARTIN EVENSTAD v. CARL STEVENS.
February 7, 1913.
Nos. 17,929—(217).
Damages not excessive.
Verdict of $500 in an action for assault and battery. Meld: The damages seem large, considering the character of the injuries complained of, but since the trial court approved the verdict, this court does not see its way clear to interfere. [Reporter].
Action in the district court for Norman county to recover $2,500 for assault and battery. The answer was a general denial. The case was tried before Grindeland, J., and a jury which returned a verdict of $500 in favor of plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendants appealed.
Affirmed.
Lambert Prigge and W. E. Rowe, for appellants.
M. A. Brattland, for respondent.
Reported in 139 N. W. 1134.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Action for assault and battery. Plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant appealed from an order denying a new trial. The question whether the verdict is excessive presents the only question requiring serious consideration. We have examined the alleged errors in law, and discover nothing to justify a new trial or an extended opinion. 'The errors complained of are not of a substantial nature, and resulted in no prejudice to defendant, if error in fact be conceded.
Upon the question of damages we have had some doubt. The damages seem large, considering the character of the injuries complained of; but, since the trial court has approved the verdict, we cannot see our way clear to interfere.
Order affirmed.