Defendants engaged the plaintiff to repair a barn roof. In his suit to recover damages for injuries sustained while on the defendants' premises, the plaintiff testified that he had been struck by a truck which one of the defendants had been driving. The defendants testified that they had discovered the plaintiff lying injured at the side of the barn, near a ladder which had been placed against it. Defendants moved for a directed verdict, which was denied, and after a verdict for the plaintiff, defendants appealed from the denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Held, that plaintiff's story was based on imagination or wilful falsehood and could not be believed. Judgment reversed, with judgment ordered for the defendants notwithstanding the verdict. A dissenting opinion contended that the record justified a new trial but did not warrant the entry of a final judgment for the defendants. Brulla v. Cassady, 206 Minn. 398, 289 N.W. 404 (1939).
Edward S. Biggar,
TRIAL - DIRECTED VERDICT WHERE TESTIMONY IS CONFLICTING,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol38/iss7/26