Cited by

In Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 156 , this court stated: “Nevertheless, where a jury has found negligence, it becomes our duty to hold as a matter of law that such negligence was a proximate cause of the injury where, in our opinion, reasonable men can come to no other conclusion.” Any possible break in the causal chain be

In reconciling inconsistent answers in a jury verdict, “it is necessary to keep in mind that the verdict is to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and to harmonize answers to interrogatories if it is possible to do so.” Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155

The applicable standard is set forth in Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155 , as follows: “[T]he verdict is to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and to harmonize answers to interrogatories if it is possible to do so.

The verdict in this case is much like the one held to be perverse in Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151

While we must reconcile special verdict answers if possible, Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , it is impossible to do so on the facts of this case.

The leading case in Minnesota involving this court’s reversing a finding of negligence and no cause is Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151

It is only where the evidence is so clear and conclusive as to leave no room for differences of opinion among reasonable men that the issue of causation becomes one of law to be decided by the court.” Plaintiffs rely upon cases such as Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , which held: “ * * * The test is whether the answers [to the special verdict] can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence and its fair inferences.

780, 786 , 7 L.Ed.2d 798, 807 (1962), the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States requires that “[w]here there is a view of the case that makes the jury’s answers to special interrogatories consistent, they must be resolved that way.” See, also, Lutterman v. Studer, 300 Minn. 507 , and Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151

When dealing with contradictions in special verdicts, this court has held that the trial court should try “to give effect to the intention of the jury and to harmonize [the] answers to interrogatories if it is possible to do so.” Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155

In Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , we acted to change the answer to a question in a special verdict where the trial court had declined to do so and where we found that the evidence required such change as a matter of law.

See, Malmquist v. Leeds, 245 Minn. 130 , Pluwak v. Lindberg, 268 Minn. 524 , Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , Seivert v. Bass, 288 Minn. 457

The test to be applied in determining whether the answers can be reconciled is briefly stated in Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151, 155 , as follows: “* * * [I]t is necessary to keep in mind that the verdict is to be liberally construed to give effect to the intention of the jury and to harmonize answers to interrogatories if it is possible to do so.

Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , 152 N. W. (2d) 63 ; May v. Lemmon, 287 Minn. 158 , 177 N. W. (2d) 298 .

In Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , 152 N. W. (2d) 63 , plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by one defendant.

Upon appeal, this court, in Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , 152 N. W. (2d) 63 , held that the automobile driver’s negligence was as a matter of law a proximate cause of the accident, and that defendants Berg, Deitz, and Green Giant were therefore entitled to contribution from appellants.

Haugen v. Dick Thayer Motor Co. 253 Minn. 199 , 91 N. W. (2d) 585 ; Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , 152 N. W. (2d) 63 .

Neither Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , 152 N. W. (2d) 63 , nor Risacher v. Lien, 279 Minn. 58 , 155 N. W. (2d) 382 , despite ostensibly a more factually similar setting, argues for a different result.

4 We think our most recent decision in Reese v. Henke, 277 Minn. 151 , 152 N. W. (2d) 63 , is most analogous to the instant case.