Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)

Citation: Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Parent Document: Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 1948-04-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3533510/mattfeld-v-nester/ ↗

Full Text

1,425 chars

An instruction that the jury may not base its verdict upon specu-. lation, conjecture, guesswork, and the like is cautionary in nature. Generally, whether a cautionary instruction should be given rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Jenkins, 171 Minn. 173, 213 N. W. 923. Whether the exercise of such discretion in the particular case constituted an abuse thereof is to be determined by whether there was seeming necessity for the caution. 53 Am. Jur., Trial, § 610. Here, there was no such necessity for the cautionary instruction requested. The general charge that the jury should base its verdict upon “actual evidence” received in court excluded by implication, as clear as though it expressly so stated, any notion that the jury might return a verdict for plaintiff if the cause of Lillian’s death was speculative, conjectural, or unknown. In Sordelett v. Mercer, 185 Va. 823, 829, 40 S. E. (2d) 289, 291, there was a general instruction that plaintiff had the burden of proof and that the jury should base its verdict upon the law and the evidence. There was also a cautionary instruction against basing the verdict upon speculation and sympathy, which was challenged on appeal. The court held that whether the cautionary instruction should have been given was a matter of discretion, but that under the circumstances, which were the same as here, there was no necessity for the caution, and said:

Other Sections in This Document (117)

Full Text