Court Opinion

ID: 9692215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:47:31.715815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:33.210088
License: Public Domain

The following memorandum was filed April 30, 1963:
Per Curiam
{on motions for rehearing). Plaintiff Mustas and defendant Inland, in support of their respective motions for rehearing, reargue propositions previously considered and decided. We deem the respective motions without merit.
We deem it advisable, however, to make this observation lest the scope of the new trial ordered be not fully understood. We intend that the answers to certain questions in the special verdict be set aside and that the new trial ex*209atend to the issues submitted by those questions. The questions are: No. 2, negligence of Inland; No. 3, whether such negligence, if any, was causal; No. 6, negligence of plaintiff; No. 7, whether such negligence, if any, was causal; No. 8, comparison of causal negligence; and No. 9(c), compensation for pain, suffering, disfigurement, and permanent disability.
The motions for rehearing are denied, without costs.