Aa Construction Co. v. Gould

This case arises from a personal injury suffered by plaintiff in a fall from a horse owned by defendants. Plaintiff brought suit against defendants for recovery of damages on the basis of defendants negligence in failing to inform plaintiff of the fact that said horse had not been broken for riding. Defendants denied negligence and asserted the affirmative defense of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. Trial was to a jury. At the close of the plaintiffs evidence and again at the close of all the evidence, defendants moved for a directed verdict, and the court reserved its ruling on each motion. The questions of negligence, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk were submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for plaintiff, but the trial court vacated that verdict and made the ruling it had earlier reserved, stating that both motions for directed verdict should have been granted when made. It then entered judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals from the directed verdict, and defendants cross-appeal, asking that, if the trial court is reversed on the directed verdict, a new trial be granted on all issues.