TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stoker v. City of Minneapolis

Eve Stoker v. City of Minneapolis

Stoker v. City of Minneapolis, 21 N.W. 557 (Minn. 1884)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 29, 1884
Judges
Gilfillan
Citations
21 N.W. 55732 Minn. 4781884 Minn. LEXIS 209
Headnotes
Contributory Negligence — Evidence.—Evidence as to plaintiff’s contributory negligence held sucii as to justify a submission of the case to the jury.
Summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin' county, Young, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after a verdict of $2,300, for injuries occasioned by plaintiff’s falling into a ditch or gully in Fifth street, in Minneapolis, between seven and eight o’clock in the evening of October 25, 1883. The street had been graded up with sand, which had been washed out by water used in •extinguishing a fire near the place of the accident, on October 7th, the gully being about three feet deep and about four and one-half feet wide. The plaintiff’s testimony was to the effect that she was crossing Fifth street, it being quite dark, and came to the ditch across which two planks had been placed. She tried the planks, and, being a heavy woman, was afraid they would not sustain her weight, and so went a few steps along the side of the ditch, when the bank gave way and .she fell in, receiving the injuries complained of. She had no previous knowledge of the condition of the street.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gilfillan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gilfillan, C. J.

The defendant insists that plaintiff’s own evidence showed her to have been guilty of negligence that contributed to the injury, and that the case ought, therefore, to have been dismissed on its motion. On that point the evidence made the case a very close one, but we think different minds might fairly arrive at different conclusions upon it, and that the case was properly left to the jury.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list