MN · rules
Minn. R. Civ. P. Form 9
Complaint for Negligence Where Plaintiff is Unable to Determine Definitely Whether the Person Responsible is C. D. or E. F. or Whether Both are Responsible and Where His Evidence May Justify a Finding of Wilfulness or of Recklessness or of Negligence
A. B., )
Plaintiff )
vs. ) COMPLAINT
C. D. and E. F., )
Defendants )
1. On June 1, 1948, on a public highway called University Avenue in St. Paul, Minnesota, defendant C. D. or defendant E. F., or both defendants C. D. and E. F. willfully or recklessly or negligently drove or caused to be driven a motor vehicle against plaintiff who was then crossing said highway.
2. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had his leg broken and was otherwise injured, was prevented from transacting his business, suffered great pain of body and mind, and incurred expenses for medical attention and hospitalization in the sum of one thousand dollars.
Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against C. D. or against E. F. or against both in the sum of ten thousand dollars and costs and disbursements.
Provenance
- Source
- revisor.mn.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-15
- Edition
- 2026-09-14
- Content hash
7bd4b51e9561386ee3322c68c35678f411c4980abd8a01614d868b44e04b0aa2
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.