Volume 304 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Automobiles — negligence of drivers — apportionment</bold>. <block_quote> 1. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's finding that both parties were negligent. Under the comparative negligence law, it is for the jury to determine the percentage of negligence attributable to each party.</block_quote> <bold>Trial — instructions — re-explanation about questions on</bold> <bold>comparative negligence and damages — propriety</bold>. <block_quote> 2. The trial court did not err in his re-explanation of the process to be followed by the jury in answering the special interrogatories dealing with comparative negligence and damages.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — refusal of requested instructions — propriety</bold>. 3. Regarding jury instructions: <block_quote> (a) Defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that any amount it awarded for loss of future earning capacity must be reduced to its present value.</block_quote> <block_quote> (b) A person with amnesia is not entitled to a presumption that he was acting with due care for his own safety. (c) Under the circumstances, the trial court did not err in refusing to give defendant's proposed instruction on the question of right-of-way.</block_quote><page_number>Page 15</page_number> <bold>Same — same — explaining effect of answers to percentage of</bold> <bold>negligence question — use of specific figure — effect</bold>. <block_quote> 4. Defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's use of a specific figure in instructing the jury as to the effect of its answer to the percentage of negligence question.</block_quote>

<bold>New trial — grounds — insufficiency of evidence and errors of</bold> <bold>law</bold>. <block_quote> A new trial will not be granted where there is no objection to the jury instructions as given and where there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that the plaintiff's conduct alone was the direct cause of her injury. Permissive grounds for granting a new trial do not encompass the possibility that impaneling another jury and conducting a new trial will bring about an opposite result.</block_quote>

<bold>Fences — action to obtain contribution for line fence —</bold> <bold>applicable statute — jurisdiction of court</bold>. <block_quote> 1. On the facts appearing, the trial court was correct in applying Minn. St. <cross_reference>344.03</cross_reference>, subd. 1, to the exclusion of Minn. St. <cross_reference>344.13</cross_reference>. Procedures followed by the fence builder were sufficient in this case to invest the district court with jurisdiction.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — character of land enclosed</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Land used as pasturage is "improved" within the meaning of Minn. St. <cross_reference>344.03</cross_reference>, subd. 1.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Ordinarily, whether land is used as pasturage is a question of fact.</block_quote><page_number>Page 245</page_number> <bold>Same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 4. The jury was entitled to find that neither party's land was, in whole or in part, improved and used within the meaning of § <cross_reference>344.03</cross_reference>, subd. 1, for any purpose at the time of the erection of the fence.</block_quote> <bold>Trespass — entry on land to build fence — lack of privilege</bold>. <block_quote> 5. No privilege to enter neighboring land to build a fence existed since the fence here involved was only a division fence and was not a partition fence.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — damages</bold>. <block_quote> 6. In the light of the evidence, the jury was entitled to find a lack of consent to the trespass and to find that defendant sustained damages of $250.</block_quote> <bold>Appeal and error — view taken of evidence</bold>. <block_quote> 7. An appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party; if the evidence as a whole supports the verdict, the verdict must stand.</block_quote>

<bold>Judgments — order vacating paternity adjudication —</bold> <bold>propriety</bold>.

<bold>Automobiles — negligence of driver — evidence permitting</bold> <bold>inference of excessive speed</bold>. <block_quote> 1. Where the evidence indicates the expectation of the presence of children and otherwise hazardous driving conditions, a jury may reasonably infer that a speed of 30 to 40 miles per hour is negligent.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — instruction on children's presence as hazard —</bold> <bold>propriety</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Where a driver should have expected the presence of children, an instruction was proper allowing the jury to consider whether a greater hazard was thereby created in its determination as to whether the defendant exercised reasonable care under the circumstances.</block_quote>

<bold>Workmen's compensation — proceedings — vacating award based</bold> <bold>on settlement — propriety</bold>.