 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nagel v. Minntertainment6/20/2000
In this personal injury action, appellant challenges the denial of its alternative motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial, and the award of prejudgment interest and costs. We affirm.
FACTS
On October 21, 1996, respondent Kristin Nagel took her three children to the Camp Snoopy amusement park in the Mall of America. Appellant Minntertainment is the operator of Camp Snoopy. While Nagel's two older children were on the "Truckin" ride, Nagel waited with her youngest child on the ride's exit walkway. A woman with a stroller attempted to walk past Nagel on the crowded walkway. The woman said, "excuse me," and Nagel stepped backwards a couple of inches. Nagel testified:
The next thing I know, I was laying on my back with my arm behind me.
When I landed there, then I started to look around, and, of course, immediately trying to think what happened. And that is when I noticed the bricks, and the railing, and all I could think is that I must have taken a step back, my foot must have been caught in the motion, and then the railing must have must have just hit my knee and flung me backwards.
Nagel had fractured her right arm; the fracture required the insertion of metal rods.
Nagel sued Minntertainment for her personal injury . A jury found Minntertainment 100% at fault and awarded Nagel $114,570 in damages. The district court awarded Nagel $4,070 in pre-verdict interest and $7,900 in costs and disbursements. The court denied Minntertainment's motion for a new trial or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This appeal followed.
DECISION
1. Motion for J.N.O.V and a New Trial
Where JNOV has been denied by the trial court, on appellate review the trial court must be affirmed, if, in the record, there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict. Unless the evidence is practically conclusive against the verdict, [this court] will not set the verdict aside. The evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and an appellate court must not set the verdict aside if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of evidence.
Pouliot v. Fitzsimmons, 582 N.W.2d 221, 224 (Minn. 1998) (citations and quotations omitted). As an alternative to JNOV, a party may obtain a new trial where the verdict is not justified by the evidence. Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01(g). The decision to grant a new trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Halla Nursery, Inc. v. Baumann-Furrie & Co., 454 N.W.2d 905, 910 (Minn. 1990).
Minntertainment challenges the district court's denial of its motion for JNOV or a new trial, arguing that the jury's finding of negligence is unsupported by the evidence. But the record includes: (1) expert testimony from an industrial engineer that the potential for injury was foreseeable, and should have been anticipated, and that a hazardous condition existed on the walkway, (2) testimony from Nagel that the bricks and decorative fence caused her fall, (3) photographs showing higher safety fencing in the other areas surrounding the ride, and (4) testimony from an orthopedic surgeon that Nagel's injury was the result of her fall.
Minntertainment argues that it did not have a duty to remedy the hazard because it was "open and obvious" and that Nagel's injury was caused by her own inattention. Possessors of land are not liable for harm caused by an obvious danger "unless the landowner should anticipate the harm despite its obvious nature." Sutherland v. Barton, 570 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Mi
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|