Flom v. Flom
1980 Minn. LEXIS 1284, 291 N.W.2d 914 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Jury findings regarding negligence, proximate cause, and comparative negligence will be affirmed on appeal if there is sufficient evidence reasonably tending to sustain them, applying the standard of reasonable care for individuals and premises liability for municipalities.
Facts:
- On Saturday, October 15, 1975, Robert Flom, his wife Ruth Ann Flom, and their son and his friend went to Mineral Springs Park in Owatonna.
- The children requested to play on the park's manually operated merry-go-round, which had several broken platform boards, a hanging piece of metal, and a loose support area.
- Robert Flom placed the children on the merry-go-round, securing their legs over support bars, and then he and the children 'coaxed' Ruth Ann Flom to join them, despite her fear of rides.
- Ruth Ann Flom sat on the platform facing outward between two support bars, away from the damaged areas, with her feet flat and grasping the support bars with both hands.
- Robert Flom began pushing the merry-go-round slowly but then increased its speed to "as fast as I could without stumbling," while Ruth Ann Flom did not cry out or tell him to stop.
- After Robert Flom let go, he observed a frightened look on his wife's face, heard a "chattering sound," and saw the merry-go-round wobble and pitch three to four inches at the perimeter.
- Ruth Ann Flom testified that the merry-go-round was going "very, very fast," shaking, wobbling, making noise, and pitching downward before she was thrown off onto the cement pavement, causing permanent injury to her leg, and she denied voluntarily releasing her hands.
- An Owatonna city employee testified that the merry-go-round was later removed for painting and repairs to boards and loose metal, but that before removal it had not wobbled when occupied, and its mechanical portion was structurally sound.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Ruth Ann Flom brought a negligence action against her husband, Robert Flom, and the City of Owatonna.
- The case proceeded to trial.
- The jury apportioned causal negligence 55% to Robert Flom, 35% to the City of Owatonna, and 10% to Ruth Ann Flom, and awarded damages.
- The trial judge ordered judgment on the jury findings.
- The trial judge denied motions for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict filed by both defendants.
- Both defendants, Robert Flom and the City of Owatonna, appealed from the judgment to the Supreme Court of Minnesota, claiming insufficient evidence of negligence or cause, and that plaintiff was more negligent than Robert Flom as a matter of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an appellate court err in affirming a jury's findings of negligence and proximate causation against a husband for pushing a merry-go-round at excessive speed and against a city for maintaining a defective merry-go-round, and in upholding the jury's apportionment of comparative negligence, when the plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from the merry-go-round?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelly
No, an appellate court does not err in affirming a jury's findings of negligence and proximate causation and in upholding the apportionment of comparative negligence when those findings are supported by sufficient evidence. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of negligence and causation on the part of Robert Flom. The jury could reasonably infer that Mr. Flom acted negligently by spinning a merry-go-round, known to be in disrepair, as fast as he could when his wife was not securely seated, and that such excessive speed foreseeably created too great a risk of her being thrown off. Furthermore, the centrifugal force caused by the excessive speed, combined with the wobble, could reasonably be found a substantial factor in causing Ruth Ann Flom's injuries, especially as she testified she did not voluntarily let go. The jury's apportionment of negligence was also upheld, as Ruth Ann Flom had no notice of the excessive speed Mr. Flom would reach, having only seen him push it slowly, while Mr. Flom was directly responsible for the major cause of the accident. Regarding the City of Owatonna, the jury was entitled to discount expert testimony and credit the Floms' testimony that the merry-go-round pitched and wobbled excessively, inferring a mechanical defect. Given the merry-go-round's general rundown condition, the jury could further infer that this defect had existed long enough for the city to reasonably discover and repair it, thus finding the city negligent in failing to do so. The jury could also reasonably find that the wobbling motion was a substantial factor in causing Ruth Ann Flom to be thrown off, making the city's negligence a proximate cause of her injuries. The court applied the standard that negligence is the failure to exercise ordinary prudence and that an action is not negligent if the harm could not be reasonably anticipated. Proximate cause exists if the negligent conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. A jury's findings on negligence and causation, as well as apportionment of negligence, will not be set aside unless manifestly contrary to the evidence.
Analysis:
This case highlights the high deference appellate courts give to jury findings in negligence actions, particularly concerning issues of foreseeability, causation, and comparative fault. It reinforces the principle that conflicting evidence, including lay witness testimony versus expert testimony, is for the jury to weigh. The case also reiterates the duty of care owed by municipalities as landowners to park visitors, emphasizing the foreseeability of harm and the duty to inspect and repair public amenities. Its impact suggests that as long as there is a reasonable evidentiary basis, even if disputed, a jury's determination on these factual issues will likely stand, making it challenging for defendants to overturn adverse verdicts on appeal.
