Preview
25-CV-21-1345
PERSONAL INJURY
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF GOODHUE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
___________________________________
Court File No.:25-CV-21-1345
Aryah Rose, a minor, by her father
and natural guardian, Daniel Rose,
Plaintiff, [Proposed]
Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and
Order
vs.
Bridgette Hall,
Defendant and
Third-Party Plaintiff,
vs.
Gina Whipple,
Third-Party Defendant.
____________________________________
The above captioned matter was tried before a jury in Goodhue
County District Court before the Honorable Patrick M. Biren,
commencing September 20, 2022, and concluding on September 21, 2022.
John Paul J. Gatto, Esq., Swor & Gatto, appeared on behalf of
Plaintiff. Jeffrey A. Hanson, Esq., Hanson Law Firm, appeared on
behalf of Defendant. Third-Party Defendant Gina Whipple was
previously dismissed from the case and was not represented by
counsel at trial. The following findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and Order stem from a special verdict issued by the jury on
September 21, 2022.
1
25-CV-21-1345
Findings of Fact
1) On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff Aryah Rose was bitten by a
dog owned by Defendant Bridgette Hall.
2) The incident occurred during an event at Defendant Hall’s
residence in Cannon Falls, MN.
3) The parties stipulated that the incident was unprovoked,
and that Plaintiff Rose was acting peaceably at the time of the
incident.
4) Plaintiff Rose was transported by Cannon Falls EMS to
Cannon Falls Hospital – Mayo Clinic Health System, where she was
treated for injuries sustained in the incident. Plaintiff Rose did
not undergo any further treatment although she claimed that the
bite resulted in permanent scarring.
5) Plaintiff Rose commenced suit against Defendant Hall
pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 347.22 seeking damages for her injuries.
6) Defendant Hall denied liability claiming that Ms. Rose
was in an unlawful place at the time incident.
7) Defendant Hall further claimed that Plaintiff Rose’s
mother, Third-Party Defendant Gina Whipple, was wholly or partially
negligent in failing to supervise Plaintiff Rose.
8) Before trial the Court granted summary judgment to Third-
Party Defendant Whipple and dismissed her from the case. The
Court’s Order and supporting Memoranda - dated September 8, 2022 –
is incorporated herein by reference.
2
25-CV-21-1345
9) Trial commenced September 20, 2022. Both parties rested
September 21, 2022.
10) At the close of evidence Plaintiff Rose moved for judgment
as a matter of law as it concerned Defendant Hall’s affirmative
defense that Plaintiff Rose was in an unlawful place at the time of
the incident. The Court granted Plaintiff Rose’s motion for the
reasons stated on the record.
11) Based on the Court’s ruling, the jury was instructed, “I
[the Court] have decided the only issue you must decide is damages.
The Special Verdict Form identifies all questions you must answer.”
12) Before the case was submitted, the parties stipulated
that Plaintiff Rose’s past medical treatment was reasonable,
necessary, and causally related to the incident, and that the cost
of said treatment was $4,019.30 ($1,719.00 – Cannon Falls EMS;
$2,300.30 – Cannon Falls Hospital (Mayo Clinic)). The Court
inserted the stipulated amount of $4,019.30 into the Special Verdict
Form in response to the question concerning past healthcare expenses
incurred by Plaintiff Rose because of the incident (Question 1a).
13) The jury returned a unanimous Special Verdict on
September 21, 2022, as follows:
3
25-CV-21-1345
1. What amount of money will fairly and adequately
compensate Aryah Rose for damages directly caused by
the June 25, 2019 incident up to the time of this
verdict for:
a. Past healthcare expenses $4,019.30
b. Past pain, disfigurement,
embarrassment and
emotional distress $30,000.00
2. What amount of money will fairly and adequately
compensate Aryah Rose for damages reasonably certain
to occur in the future, directly caused by the June
25, 2019 incident:
a. Future healthcare expense $0
b. Disfigurement, embarrassment,
and emotional distress $10,000.00
4
25-CV-21-1345
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1) The Court adopts the jury’s answers to the Special Verdict
interrogatories.
2) Defendant Hall is solely liable to Plaintiff Rose
pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 347.22.
3) There are no viable legal defenses available to Defendant
Hall.
4) Plaintiff Rose sustained past and future damages totaling
$44,019.30 because of the incident.
5) Plaintiff is the prevailing party.
5
25-CV-21-1345
ORDER
1) Subject to the thirty-day stay set forth in Rule 125 of
the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, Plaintiff
Rose is entitled to judgment against Defendant Hall in the amount
of $44,019.30.
2) Plaintiff Rose is further entitled to seek taxable costs
and disbursements pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 549.02 & 549.04 as
well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to Minn.
Stat. § 549.09 to be inserted into the judgment against Defendant
Hall subject to this Court’s future rulings and determinations.
3) Defendants are permitted to seek collateral source
deductions, if any, consistent with Minn. Stat. § 548.251.
THERE BEING NO JUST REASON FOR DELAY, LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED
ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: ________________ BY THE COURT:
________________________
Patrick M. Biren
Judge of District Court
6
Preview
25-CV-21-1345 PERSONAL INJURY STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF GOODHUE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ___________________________________ Court File No.:25-CV-21-1345 Aryah Rose, a minor, by her father and natural guardian, Daniel Rose, Plaintiff, [Proposed] Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order vs. Bridgette Hall, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, vs. Gina Whipple, Third-Party Defendant. ____________________________________ The above captioned matter was tried before a jury in Goodhue County District Court before the Honorable Patrick M. Biren, commencing September 20, 2022, and concluding on September 21, 2022. John Paul J. Gatto, Esq., Swor & Gatto, appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Jeffrey A. Hanson, Esq., Hanson Law Firm, appeared on behalf of Defendant. Third-Party Defendant Gina Whipple was previously dismissed from the case and was not represented by counsel at trial. The following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and Order stem from a special verdict issued by the jury on September 21, 2022. 1 25-CV-21-1345 Findings of Fact 1) On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff Aryah Rose was bitten by a dog owned by Defendant Bridgette Hall. 2) The incident occurred during an event at Defendant Hall’s residence in Cannon Falls, MN. 3) The parties stipulated that the incident was unprovoked, and that Plaintiff Rose was acting peaceably at the time of the incident. 4) Plaintiff Rose was transported by Cannon Falls EMS to Cannon Falls Hospital – Mayo Clinic Health System, where she was treated for injuries sustained in the incident. Plaintiff Rose did not undergo any further treatment although she claimed that the bite resulted in permanent scarring. 5) Plaintiff Rose commenced suit against Defendant Hall pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 347.22 seeking damages for her injuries. 6) Defendant Hall denied liability claiming that Ms. Rose was in an unlawful place at the time incident. 7) Defendant Hall further claimed that Plaintiff Rose’s mother, Third-Party Defendant Gina Whipple, was wholly or partially negligent in failing to supervise Plaintiff Rose. 8) Before trial the Court granted summary judgment to Third- Party Defendant Whipple and dismissed her from the case. The Court’s Order and supporting Memoranda - dated September 8, 2022 – is incorporated herein by reference. 2 25-CV-21-1345 9) Trial commenced September 20, 2022. Both parties rested September 21, 2022. 10) At the close of evidence Plaintiff Rose moved for judgment as a matter of law as it concerned Defendant Hall’s affirmative defense that Plaintiff Rose was in an unlawful place at the time of the incident. The Court granted Plaintiff Rose’s motion for the reasons stated on the record. 11) Based on the Court’s ruling, the jury was instructed, “I [the Court] have decided the only issue you must decide is damages. The Special Verdict Form identifies all questions you must answer.” 12) Before the case was submitted, the parties stipulated that Plaintiff Rose’s past medical treatment was reasonable, necessary, and causally related to the incident, and that the cost of said treatment was $4,019.30 ($1,719.00 – Cannon Falls EMS; $2,300.30 – Cannon Falls Hospital (Mayo Clinic)). The Court inserted the stipulated amount of $4,019.30 into the Special Verdict Form in response to the question concerning past healthcare expenses incurred by Plaintiff Rose because of the incident (Question 1a). 13) The jury returned a unanimous Special Verdict on September 21, 2022, as follows: 3 25-CV-21-1345 1. What amount of money will fairly and adequately compensate Aryah Rose for damages directly caused by the June 25, 2019 incident up to the time of this verdict for: a. Past healthcare expenses $4,019.30 b. Past pain, disfigurement, embarrassment and emotional distress $30,000.00 2. What amount of money will fairly and adequately compensate Aryah Rose for damages reasonably certain to occur in the future, directly caused by the June 25, 2019 incident: a. Future healthcare expense $0 b. Disfigurement, embarrassment, and emotional distress $10,000.00 4 25-CV-21-1345 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1) The Court adopts the jury’s answers to the Special Verdict interrogatories. 2) Defendant Hall is solely liable to Plaintiff Rose pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 347.22. 3) There are no viable legal defenses available to Defendant Hall. 4) Plaintiff Rose sustained past and future damages totaling $44,019.30 because of the incident. 5) Plaintiff is the prevailing party. 5 25-CV-21-1345 ORDER 1) Subject to the thirty-day stay set forth in Rule 125 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, Plaintiff Rose is entitled to judgment against Defendant Hall in the amount of $44,019.30. 2) Plaintiff Rose is further entitled to seek taxable costs and disbursements pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 549.02 & 549.04 as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.09 to be inserted into the judgment against Defendant Hall subject to this Court’s future rulings and determinations. 3) Defendants are permitted to seek collateral source deductions, if any, consistent with Minn. Stat. § 548.251. THERE BEING NO JUST REASON FOR DELAY, LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: ________________ BY THE COURT: ________________________ Patrick M. Biren Judge of District Court 6