ANDREW NYGAARD, Respondent, v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation, Appellant. Trial facts. (178 N. W. 961.) questions submitted for special verdict should contain ultimate 1. Questions submitted to a jury for a special verdict should contain only the ultimate conclusions of fact in controversy. The questions should be plain, single, and direct. They should not comprehend issues of law except as issues of law and fact are necessarily intermingled. New trial on motion court may consider its own error in submitting special verdict. 2. In the preparation and submission of questions for a special verdict, the trial court exercises its discretion. When it errs, in this discretion, both in the preparation and submission of such questions to a jury, it may exercise its discretion concerning its own error upon motion for a new trial. New trial court has discretion to grant for error in submission of questions for special verdict. 3. In an action for personal injuries, where a special verdict was returned by the jury upon questions proposed that involved questions of fact, questions of law and of fact intermingled, and conclusions of law without any instructions to the jury concerning some of the questions of law involved, and where thereafter the trial court upon motion therefor made its order granting a new trial, it is held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in so doing. Opinion filed June 17, 1920. Rehearing denied September 10, 1920. Action for personal injuries in District Court, Stutsman County, Coffey, J. The defendant has appealed from an order granting a new trial. Young, Conmy & Young, for appellant. Complaint cannot be made of failure to instruct unless there is a request for further instruction made. State v. Glass, 29 N. D. 620; North Star Lumber Co. v. Rosenquist, 29 N. D. 567; State ex rel. People v. Banik, 21 N. D. 425; Chrestenson v. Harms, 161 N. W. 346; Huber v. Seiszler, 37 N. D. 556. A finding that plaintiff was negligent or defendant negligent, or that plaintiff had or had not assumed the risk of injury, would be a legal conclusion on the part of the jury, and not permissible. P. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Burger, 124 Ind. 275, 24 N. E. 981; L. N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Miller, 141 Ind. 533, 37 N. E. 343; Walkup v. May, 9 Ind. App 409, 36 N. E. 917; E. & T. H. R. Co. v. Taft, 2 Ind. App. 237, 28 N. E. 442; C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Hadley, 12 Ind. App. 516, 40 N. E. 760; Gaston v. Bailey, 14 Ind. App. 581, 43 N. E. 254; Lee v. C. St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 101 Wis. 352, 77 N. W. 714; Morrison v. Lee, 13 N. D. 600. Assuming that additional instructions should have been given without request, the error in this regard was not prejudicial. Boulger v. N. P. R. Co. (N. D.) 171 N. W. 635; Guild v. Moore, 32 N. D. 432. Knauf & Knauf, for respondent. At defendant's request, the instructions as to the law were omitted and error created. Louisville etc. v. Frawley, 9 N. E. 594; Louisville etc. v. Hart, 4 L.R.A. 549; Ward v. Cochran, 18 C. C. A. 7; Moline Plow Co. v. Gilbert, 3 Dak. 239, 15 N. W. 1; North Star Lbr. Co. v. Rosenquist, 29 N. D. 566. All of the issues formed were not submitted. Crick v. Ins. Co. 48 N. W. 198. The special interrogatory or verdict failing to cover the issues in the entire case cannot control the right of the plaintiff to a general verdict. Reed v. Lammel, 42 N. W. 202; Freidman v. R. R. Co. 71 Atl. 901; Pint v. Bauer, 16 N. W. 84; Crich v. Ins. Co. 48 N. W. 199; Morbey v. R. R. Co. 89 N. W. 105; Hall v. Ratcliff, 24 S. E. 1011; McDougall v. Ashland, etc., 73 N. W. 330; Baxter v. R. R. Co. 8 N. W. |