 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall v. Hall3/22/2005
Appellant Jennifer Hall challenges the trial court's denial of her motions for JNOV and a new trial, arguing that the jury's verdict was contrary to the evidence presented at trial. Because reasonable jurors could have concluded that respondent was not negligent based on the evidence presented at trial, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Jennifer Hall brought this wrongful-death action against her sister-in-law, respondent Sara Hall, who was involved in an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident in which appellant's son, Dustin Hall, died. The trial court conducted a jury trial.
The accident occurred on August 20, 2000, while Dustin, age four at that time, and his sister Brianna, age six at that time, visited their grandparents, Clarence and Sandi Hall, at their grandparent's house. Respondent, who lived with her parents, Clarence and Sandi Hall, decided to take a ride on her parents' 1996 Polaris ATV. Brianna and Dustin announced that they wanted to ride on the ATV too. Respondent gave Brianna a ride on the ATV, while Dustin put on his shoes.
When respondent returned to pick up Dustin, she stopped the ATV in front of the house. Respondent testified that she did not put the ATV in park or neutral, though she said that every other time in her life when she stopped the ATV to let someone on or off she put the ATV in either park or neutral. Respondent testified that she was turned facing Brianna, who was behind her, for about 15 to 60 seconds. During this time, respondent realized Dustin had climbed on the ATV because respondent heard him talking in front of her. Respondent's hands were off the handlebars at this time. Respondent agreed that, for the safety of passengers, she would not want the throttle to be hit while the ATV was still in gear because the ATV could move forward.
Respondent agreed that Dustin apparently hit the throttle that day because the ATV began to move forward. Respondent turned around to face forward, reached for the handlebars, and attempted to control the vehicle as it traveled forward about 30 feet. The ATV hit respondent's vehicle, rolled, and respondent and Dustin were thrown off. According to Sandi Hall, the ATV landed on respondent and Dustin.
Sandi Hall, who was about three feet away from Dustin when he climbed on the ATV, testified that Dustin shifted back and forth on the ATV after climbing on because the seat was slippery against his pants. According to Sandi Hall, Dustin reached up while he was looking at her and hit the throttle within seconds of climbing on the ATV. Dustin had previously ridden on the ATV about 150 times with various family members according to Sandi Hall.
At the hospital that night, respondent said to her mother, "I'm sorry this is all my fault." Respondent testified that there was a warning sticker on the ATV that said "no passengers." But the photographs of the ATV that appellant introduced into evidence did not show such a warning.
Deputy Kevin Spieker testified that respondent was the operator of the ATV at the time of the accident, and that as far as his investigation revealed, there was no other person besides respondent who was in control of the ATV.
After all of the evidence was presented, appellant moved the trial court for a directed verdict on negligence, arguing that respondent had violated Minn. Stat. ยง 84.928, subd. 2(7) (2004), and was therefore negligent per se. That statute provides, in relevant part, that "A person may not drive or operate an all-terrain vehicle: . . . (7) with more persons on the vehicle than it was designed for." Id. The trial court denied the motion.
Instead, the trial court read the statute in
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|