History
  • No items yet
midpage
Gibson v. Sandstrom
216 N.W.2d 833
Minn.
1974
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs jointly appeal from an order of the trial court denying their motion for a new trial as to the issue of damages only. We affirm.

Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of an automobile accident on May 20,1971, and their actions were consolidated for trial. The defendant admitted liability. The jury returned verdicts for each plaintiff for the amount of their lost wages and medical expenses. Plaintiffs allege the verdicts are inadequate and were given under the influence of passion and prejudice.

We have carefully reviewed the record. It does not appear that the damages awarded were insufficient due to the influence of passion and prejudice or that the verdict was so inadequate as to give rise to a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying a motion for a new trial. Brannan v. Shertzer, 242 Minn. 277, 64 N. W. 2d 755 (1954).

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Gibson v. Sandstrom
Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Date Published: Apr 12, 1974
Citation: 216 N.W.2d 833
Docket Number: Nos. 44213, 44214
Court Abbreviation: Minn.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.