Opinion ID: 1831078
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims of Error at Trial

Text: 2. As noted, plaintiff Swanson is not in a position to claim a new trial as against defendant Thill because of any errors in the instructions or in the reception of evidence. We do not believe a new trial to be warranted at the instance of defendant Bly upon the grounds asserted by him for these reasons: (a) The jury was entitled to know that Mrs. Thill was killed at the time of the accident in explanation of the fact that her husband, a party to the proceedings, did not produce her as a witness. [2] Apart from this, the fact of her death was brought to the attention of the jury in a number of instances with no objection being made. [3] Defendant Thill's closing argument, taken as a whole, did not emphasize Mrs. Thill's death in such a way as to constitute reversible error. (b) The inconclusive references to a posted sign [4] indicating a 15-mile-per-hour speed limit for traffic approaching the intersection from the north were not adequate to show that the sign was erected at the direction of the commissioner of highways after a determination that the speed limit otherwise established was greater than that reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist within the meaning of Minn. St. 169.14, subd. 4. [5] And if the sign was placed at the direction of the commissioner of highways, the receipt of exhibit 3 was proper by way of rebutting any inference which might follow from proof of the existence of the sign that such a determination had in fact been made. (c) Although the jury might well have been permitted to exercise its own commonsense as to the effect of the limited quantity of beer said to have been consumed on the day of the accident by defendant Thill, we are not persuaded that the trial judge's suggestion that this evidence should be disregarded had any effect on the verdict as returned.