George v. Estate of Baker

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed a wrongful-death action arising from a collision between a taxi and a tractor-trailer during a winter storm. The court upheld the jury's finding that both drivers were negligent but that neither driver's negligence caused the accident, and declined to order a new trial as to the truck driver. It reversed and remanded for a new trial on the taxi driver's liability because an erroneous curative instruction regarding the applicable standard of care may have affected the jury's causation analysis.

Holdings

1. The jury could reasonably find Baker negligent without finding that his negligence caused the accident; therefore, the verdict was not perverse and the denial of JNOV was proper.
2. Appellant adequately preserved the trial-error issues despite not specifically listing them in the statement of issues in the petition for further review.
3. The instruction that the reasonable-person standard applied to Baker materially misstated the law, was not cured by the later correct instruction, and constituted reversible error requiring a new trial on Baker's liability.
4. The evidentiary errors and curative instruction did not require a new trial concerning Losey because the extreme-caution standard applied only if the jury found hazardous conditions, and whether hazardous conditions existed was a fact question for the jury.
5. It was error to instruct the jury on a single Liberian life-expectancy figure because the figure lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and did not provide an age-specific expectancy applicable to Dekpah; a new trial on damages was required.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the jury's finding that Baker was negligent but that his negligence did not cause the accident was perverse and required JNOV or judgment as a matter of law.
2. Whether appellant adequately preserved the issues arising from his motion for a new trial in the petition for further review.
3. Whether admission of testimony concerning Baker's careful character and the number of other accidents occurring during the storm was prejudicial error.
4. Whether the district court's curative instruction incorrectly applying the reasonable-person standard to Baker was prejudicial and required a new trial.
5. Whether the same instructional and evidentiary errors required a new trial concerning Losey's liability.
6. Whether instructing the jury on a single Liberian life-expectancy figure was erroneous and required a new trial on damages.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded