Title: Hamilton v. Killian
Citation: 207 N.W.2d 703
Docket Number: 43720
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: May 25, 1973

207 N.W.2d 703 (1973) Donald M. HAMILTON, et al., Respondents, v. Robert W. KILLIAN, d. b. a. Malmo Bay Lodge, et al., Appellants. No. 43720. Supreme Court of Minnesota. May 25, 1973. *704 Hagglund &amp; Johnson, and Clarence E. Hagglund, Minneapolis, for appellants. Miller, Neary &amp; Zins, and John M. Miller, Minneapolis, for respondents. Heard before KNUTSON, C. J., and PETERSON, TODD, and MacLAUGHLIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendants Robert W. Killian and Lorraine Killian appeal from the denial of their motion for a new trial. They argue that a new trial is required on the grounds that the evidence does not justify the verdict, that the court erred in permitting plaintiffs to reopen their case in chief to provide additional foundation testimony, and that the final argument of plaintiffs' counsel was prejudicial. We affirm. Plaintiffs were injured in a head-on automobile collision which occurred on November 8, 1969, on County Road No. 28 in Mille Lacs County. The driver of the other vehicle, Darrell Westerlund, was killed in the accident. There is no dispute in the evidence that the accident was caused by the negligence of decedent. The evidence discloses that Westerlund began drinking intoxicants on Friday evening, November 7, 1969, and continued to do so throughout the entire night without sleep and the following day until 4:50 p. m., the time of the accident. Decedent and his companions arrived at the Malmo Bay Lodge, a licensed on-sale liquor establishment operated by defendants Killian, between Saturday noon and 1 p. m. and remained there until shortly before the accident. Decedent did leave the establishment for approximately 15 to 30 minutes to take a companion to the latter's car but returned and had at least one additional drink prior to departing with the same companion. Plaintiffs' evidence discloses no direct testimony that decedent was intoxicated at the Malmo Bay Lodge except that one of plaintiffs' witnesses testified that he didn't think decedent was "feeling any pain" just prior to the arrival at Malmo Bay Lodge. Evidence presented by defendants' witnesses was to the effect that decedent appeared normal. The parties stipulated that a blood sample of decedent taken after the accident showed an alcoholic content of .26 at the time of the collision. Both parties presented evidence by experts interpreting such a finding and relating it to the evidence regarding the drinking in which decedent had participated before the accident. At the close of the evidence a motion dismissing defendant Fred Rubin, a bartender employed by Malmo Bay Lodge, was granted. The case was then submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs against defendants Killian. *705 The trial court in an excellent memorandum accompanying its order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial, most adequately disposes of the question raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The trial court there said: We agree and adopt the statement of the trial court. Allowing plaintiffs to reopen their case for purposes of presenting additional foundation testimony is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge and his action will not be disturbed on appeal since there is no evidence to show any abuse of discretion. Lerner v. City of Minneapolis, 284 Minn. 46, 169 N.W.2d 380 (1969); State, *706 by Lord, v. Casey, 263 Minn. 47, 115 N.W.2d 749 (1962). We have reviewed the final argument of plaintiffs' counsel and do not find it to be prejudicial. The memorandum of the trial court as to this issue is correct. It states: Affirmed.