Instead, on a petition for rehearing pursuant to Rule 40, NDRAppP, Kroh suggests that we have overlooked or misapprehended the point in failing to remand with directions that the trial court now make a determination upon Kroh's alternative motion for new trial. Kroh relies upon this court's statement in Johnson v Frelich, 153 N.W.2d 775, 779 (N.D. 1967): "This being true [that the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict but apparently deemed it not necessary to pass on the motion for new trial], justice requires that the defendant be permitted to obtain a ruling of the trial court on his motion for a new trial."

This court has previously remanded cases to the trial court for disposition of alternative motions for new trial. Johnson v. Frelich, 153 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1967); Chicago, M., St. P. P. RR. Co. v. Johnston's Fuel Liners, Inc., 122 N.W.2d 140 (N.D. 1963); Smith v. Knutson, 76 N.D. 375, 36 N.W.2d 323 (1949); La Bree v. Dakota Tractor Equipment Co., 69 N.D. 561, 288 N.W. 476 (1939). In Johnson, Smith, and La Bree, the trial court said nothing about the motion for new trial, and in Chicago, M., St. P. P. RR. Co., the trial court's language was construed as not passing on the motion for new trial.

Moen v. Moen, 65 N.D. 40, 256 N.W. 254 (1934), disposes of that contention when it states that the charging of thievery and other crimes constitutes slander per se. Damages are therefore presumed, and considering the question of the insufficiency of the evidence on appeal from the order denying the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, it must be considered in the light most favorable to the verdict of the jury. The facts preclude a challenge to the finding of the jury, as the evidence is sufficient to sustain such finding, and it cannot be disturbed on motion or on appeal. Willard v. Owens, 164 N.W.2d 910 (N.D. 1969); Christensen v. Farmers State Bank of Richardton, 157 N.W.2d 352 (N. D. 1968); Johnson v. Frelich, 153 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1967); Mikkelson v. Risovi, 141 N.W.2d 150 (N.D. 1966); Larson v. Meyer, 135 N.W.2d 145 (N.D. 1965); Nelson v. Scherling, 71 N.D. 337, 300 N.W. 803 (1941); La Bree v. Dakota Tractor Equipment Co., 69 N.D. 561, 288 N.W. 476 (1939). There is no argument or dispute as to the right of the trial court to reduce the damages or in lieu thereof grant a new trial if the verdict is deemed excessive and such excessiveness results from passion and prejudice on the part of the jury.

Before a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict will be granted it must be conclusively established that the party making the motion is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Kunze v. Stang, 191 N.W.2d 526 (N.D. 1971); Linington v. McLean County, 161 N.W.2d 487 (N.D. 1968); Johnson v. Frelich, 153 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1967); Haga v. Cook, supra. An examination of the record in this case establishes, without contradiction, that (1) the manufacturer manufactured and sold to Morrison-Knudsen all of the components of the Symons Superforms System involved in this action; (2) the manufacturer delivered to Morrison-Knudsen a supply of a technical manual necessary for the assembly and use of the Symons Superforms System; (3) immediately following the accident one of the technical manuals furnished by the manufacturer was seen by the safety engineer reposing on the desk of the project superintendent of the MSR Project, where this employee was working; (4) contained on the third page of the technical manual is the following safety instruction: "E. SAFETY. 1. Horizontal crossmembers and the vertical rod facilitate easy, safe climbing and safety belt attachment.

On such motions, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the verdict was rendered. Brinkman v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, 187 N.W.2d 657 (N.D. 1971); Haugen v. City of Grand Forks, 187 N.W.2d 68 (N.D. 1971); Christensen v. Farmers State Bank of Richardton, 157 N.W.2d 352 (N.D. 1968); Johnson v. Frelich, 153 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1967); Linington v. McLean County, 146 N.W.2d 45 (N.D. 1966); Mikkelson v. Risovi, 141 N.W.2d 150 (N.D. 1966); Larson v. Meyer, 135 N.W.2d 145 (N.D. 1965); Chicago, M. St. P. P. R. Co. v. Johnston's Fuel Liners, Inc., 122 N.W.2d 140 (N.D. 1963). Viewed in this light, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to present the question of fact for the jury and that Stang was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law as is required to sustain a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The final issue claimed as error is the failure of the trial court to grant a new trial in each case.

When an appeal is taken from the denial of a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and when considering whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the verdict was rendered. Haugen v. City of Grand Forks, 187 N.W.2d 68 (N.D. 1971); Tennyson v. Bandle, 181 N.W.2d 687 (N.D. 1970); Christensen v. Farmers State Bank of Richardton, 157 N.W.2d 352 (N.D. 1968); Johnson v. Frelich, 153 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1967); Mikkelson v. Risovi, 141 N.W.2d 150 (N.D. 1966); Larson v. Meyer, 135 N.W.2d 145 (N.D. 1965); Chicago, M. St. P. P. R. Co. v. Johnston's Fuel Liners, 122 N.W.2d 140 (N.D. 1963); Long v. People's Department Store, 74 N.W.2d 80 (N.D. 1955); Lee v. AAA North Dakota Automobile Club, 68 N.W.2d 835 (N.D. 1955); Nelson v. Scherling, 71 N.D. 337, 300 N.W. 803 (1941); La Bree v. Dakota Tractor Equipment Co., 69 N.D. 561, 288 N.W. 476 (1939). From the evidence we conclude that this issue presented a question of fact for the jury to determine and that the issue was properly one for the jury to decide. Thus, applying the rule that the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, we hold that the evidence supports the verdict.

In considering such motion, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Johnson v. Frelich, 153 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1967); Erhardt v. Gold Seal Chinchillas, Inc., 144 N.W.2d 744 (N.D. 1966); Kinnischtzke v. City of Glen Ullin, 79 N.D. 495, 57 N.W.2d 588 (1953). And the verdict will not be set aside if there is any evidence to sustain it. Long v. People's Department Store, 74 N.W.2d 80 (N.D. 1956); Nicholson v. Roop, 62 N.W.2d 473 (N.D. 1954).

This is the second time this case has been before this court. The opinion on the first appeal is found in 153 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1967). In that case, the plaintiff appealed from judgment entered notwithstanding the verdict of the jury.

This court has repeatedly held that questions of negligence, contributory negligence, and proximate cause ordinarily are questions for a jury, and it is only when the record is such that reasonable men can draw but one conclusion therefrom that such questions become questions of law for the court. Gleson v. Thompson, 154 N.W.2d 780 (N.D. 1967); Johnson v. Frelich, 153 N.W.2d 775 (N.D. 1967); Peterson v. Rude, 146 N.W.2d 555 (N.D. 1966); Willert v. Nielsen, 146 N.W.2d 26 (N.D. 1966); Vick v. Fanning, 129 N.W.2d 268 (N.D. 1964); Chicago, M., St. P. P. R. Co. v. Johnston's Fuel Liners, Inc., 122 N.W.2d 140 (N.D. 1963); Bauer v. Kruger, 114 N.W.2d 553 (N.D. 1962); Gravseth v. Farmers Union Oil Co. of Minot, 108 N.W.2d 785 (N.D. 1961). The jury, by its answer to the first interrogatory relating to the plaintiff's decedent, found that he had been negligent in the operation of his truck.