Minnesota Supreme Court, 1911

Lamberson v. Whitcomb

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 27, 1911 · Brown

115 Minn. 495; 132 N.W. 991; 1911 Minn. LEXIS 887 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Deuisch, Allen & Breding and Sol Fligelmmi, for appellant., Wondra & Helm and J. W. Pinch, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1934, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Burke v. O'Neil (Minn. 1934)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Brown, J.

Action to recover for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff from a defective sidewalk in front of the place of business of defendant Whitcomb, in which plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant Whit-comb appealed from an order denying a new trial.

The evidence justified the jury in finding that the sidewalk, alleged to have been in a defective condition and the cause of plaintiff’s injuries, was laid by defendant Whitcomb in front of his prem*496ises with the consent of the city, and that he was under obligation to keep and maintain the same in safe condition for use. On this theory the action was dismissed as to defendant city, of which order no complaint is made. The evidence further tends to show that the walk was defective and out of repair, in consequence of which plaintiff was caused to fall, resulting in a broken arm, and, it is claimed, .a dislocated shoulder. The jury awarded a verdict of $1,000. The ■only questions presented on this appeal are: (1) Whether the sidewalk was defective and out of repair, and the cause of plaintiff’s injury; and (2) whether the damages awarded by the jury are excessive. We have examined the record with care, and find therein ■evidence sufficient to justify the verdict upon all elements essential to plaintiff’s right of action. We also conclude that the verdict is not excessive. A discussion of the evidence would serve no useful purpose.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.