History
  • No items yet
midpage
Latcham v. Boysen
306 Minn. 545
Minn.
1975
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Plaintiff recovered from defendant for personal injuries sustained in a farm accident. Defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for amended findings and conclusions or for a new trial, contending that there was insufficient probative evidence of causal negligence, that the court erred in the admission of evidence and in its instructions to the jury, and that plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, particularly in relation to an assumption of risk. We conclude that the verdict was not the product of asserted error in the admission of evidence or in the instructions of the court. We think the verdict is not without sufficient evidentiary support; although we may well have decided the litigation differently, we will not disturb the result.

Affirmed.

Otis, J. dissents.

Case Details

Case Name: Latcham v. Boysen
Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Date Published: Nov 21, 1975
Citation: 306 Minn. 545
Docket Number: No. 45330
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.