 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nagel v. Minntertainment6/20/2000
nn. 1997). Here, Nagel's expert, Richard Gauger, testified that Minntertainment should have anticipated the harm because, in his professional opinion, the walkway was unsafe. Minntertainment contends that Bisher v. Homart Dev. Co., Inc., 328 N.W.2d 731 (Minn. 1983) mandates JNOV.
But Bisher is factually distinguishable; Bisher was walking down an open mall corridor when he tripped over a brick planter. Id. at 732. Here, Nagel was standing in a crowded walkway, moved "inches" backward to make way for another women with a stroller, and tripped over the bricks and a decorative fence. Next, Minntertainment argues that Gauger lacked the requisite qualifications to render an expert opinion. But Gauger testified that (1) he had a 5-year degree in industrial engineering from the University of Minnesota including a course in "safety engineering," (2) he was certified by the National Counsel of Examiners for engineering, (3) he was licensed in Minnesota, and (4) he had been the resident engineer for the construction of the Maplewood Mall and the Burnsville Center.
Minntertainment also argues that Gauger's opinions lacked foundation. The district court is given wide latitude in determining whether there is sufficient foundation upon which an expert may state an opinion and that determination will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Benson v. Northern Gopher Enters., 455 N.W.2d 444, 445-46 (Minn. 1990) (citations omitted). Gauger testified that he had reviewed the blueprints of Camp Snoopy and that the exit walkway was unsafe because safety fencing should have extended throughout the walkway. Moreover, Gauger testified that the hazard was prominent and that construction should have been in place to allow a safe exit from the ride.
Finally, Minntertainment argues that Nagel failed to offer competent evidence of causation. But Nagel testified that her foot must have caught the brick and that the railing then hit her knee and flung her backwards. In sum, appellant has not shown that the evidence as a whole is "practically conclusive" against the verdict or that the district court has abused its discretion.
2. Prejudgment Interest
Minntertainment argues that the district court erred in calculating prejudgment interest. Minn. Stat. ยง 549.09, subd. 1 (1998), provides:
The prevailing party shall receive interest on any judgment or award from the time of commencement of the action * until the time of verdict, * only if the amount of its offer is closer to the judgment or award than the amount of the opposing party's offer.
Here, the parties have stipulated in writing that on August 31, 1999, Nagel offered to settle the case for $39,000 or, alternatively, to participate in binding arbitration with a minimum of $10,000 and a maximum of $100,000. Minntertainment rejected both offers and submitted an offer of judgment of $30,000. Nagel's settlement offer of $39,000 was closer to the judgment of $114,570 than Minntertainment's settlement offer of $30,000; accordingly, there was no error.
3. Costs and Disbursements
This court reviews a district court's decision to award costs and disbursements under an abuse of discretion standard. See Radloff v. First Am. Nat'l Bank, 470 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Minn. App. 1991), review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991). Minntertainment raises four challenges to the award of costs and disbursements.
First, Minntertainment contends that a $200 reimbursement for statutory costs and filing fees was duplicative. But its assertion is not supported by authority and therefore is waived. See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, 187 N.W.2d 133, 13
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.
|
|