*1 1967, 561, applies, the agreeing c. L. Although apparently provides that act § 3 plaintiff that since cured, contends fects are mortgage validity involving com- of a apply to actions not does it passage, act May 18,1967, the date of its months of within menced The basis foreclosure invalid. make the defects apply and the does commenced claim fraud action that its plaintiff’s contention for mortgage validity foreclosure. of the July involved validity of the involved the plaintiff’s action for fraud how fail to see alleges complaint mortgage essence Its foreclosure. mortgage of the the existence disclose failure to fraudulent validity damage. of the of the fore- raises issue It nowhere plaintiff contrary, fact, it to assume that fore- procedure; seems damages by the fore- valid, claimed were caused closure was mortgage defendant was claims about which closure fraudulently validity challenged of the fore- Plaintiff first silent. petition for issuance new title answer to defendant’s closure certificates, its proceeding not commenced until December 8,1967. irregularities procedure

Since the defendant’s foreclosure validity mortgage cisely c. covered L. and since agree challenged until December we with the foreclosure was alleged that the defects cured. trial court’s determination Affirmed. a member of Mr. this court at the the consideration decision of this case.

or OF CITY

HARRIET ELM ST. HOSPITAL v. JOSEPH’S OF ST. PAUL. (2d) 180N. 262. September 4, 1970 42006. No. Peterson, Jr., appellant. Popovich Fred N. Peterson & Vanasek, Logan O’Brien, Logan, Jardine, and Alan R. & Jerre F. respondent. *2 Sheran, Otis, Murphy, and Nelson, James P. William Heard before by on entire Murphy, and based briefs decision F. JJ. Consideration Sheran, Rogosheske, Nelson, Murphy, and en P.

court banc. William concurring. JJ.,

Per Curiam. Joseph’s defendant, judgment Appeal of St. from entered in favor a Paul, in Hospital City pursuant an a directed verdict of to St. damages allegedly by Elm, plaintiff, while action sustained Harriet hospital patient. trial erred she was a It contended that the is submitting alleged negligence question defendant’s of determining jury and that a it erred as matter of law that proved against had not a cause of action defendant. age

Plaintiff, injury, of to the time was admitted hospital physi- fendant cian, December her on under directions of diagnosed hypertension who her condition and cerebral as severe spasm. days improved arterial After her two condition and her doctor up directed that she could be and about. entered bathroom As she morning on the of December she and became ill faint. She fell to the floor, period time, way and after an undetermined of made her to back floor, her bed. While unconscious on the bathroom she sustained a severe burn on her left elbow and on the left side her back. These burns resulted from contact with an uncovered steam radiator in the produced temperature bathroom. The radiator a of 208° 218° to F. on surface, temperature apparently its outside is normal for a radia- type. granted tor of that The trial court motion for a di- rected proximate injury verdict on the theories that the cause of the unanticipated was the plaintiff, fall of which defendant could not have foreseen, dangerous. and that radiator was not unusual or entirely persuaded are negligence

While we that defendant’s an issue case, under the facts we feel that there nevertheless questions jury were elementary fact for the to consider. It is that a mo- presents only questions tion for a directed verdict of law and admits purposes credibility of the motion the of evidence for the adverse party every and may fairly inference which be drawn from the evi- recently dence. Beninga, noted Schmidt v. 285 Minn. (2d) N. may men reasonable differ as to what constitutes ordinary proximate care upon and causal connection the evidence cause, proximate con- negligence as well 'as and questions of

sented, jury. negligence, tributory en- occurred a constricted appear the accident it would Here compactly ar- toilet facilities washroom where warning provided. The and no was ranged. uncovered was The radiator room, light consider, might limited dimensions of the jury well duty which defend- which created risk existed a foreseeable

whether might jury hot consider that the radiator was also The breached. ant danger designed present a to ill and as to the facilities so located so might expected them. Tenuous as the evi- be to use patients who infirm they may be, we think are nevertheless sufficient inferences dence and of defendant’s breach jury’s on the issues warrant a to may imposed. circumstances have as the duties of such granted. trial and new Reversed Otis, injury simply a condition. The was The heated radiator fainting. by plaintiff’s If she had not hit but the radiator by hitting falling, injured herself would have sink she radiator I would affirm. or the floor. *3 (dissenting).

Knutson, Chief Justice of Mr. Justice Otis. I concur in the dissent

Peterson, Justice of Mr. Justice I concur in the dissent Otis. Mr. a member of this in the case. or decision