Moan v. Aasen
| Decision Date | 27 February 1948 |
| Docket Number | 34561. |
| Citation | 31 N.W.2d 265,225 Minn. 504 |
| Parties | MOAN et al. v. AASEN. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The question as to whether defendant was guilty of contributory negligence was one of fact and not of law, where there was evidence showing that when defendant turned into a strip of road 120 feet long he saw that the road was unobstructed; that plaintiffs' car was coming from the opposite direction on its right side of the road with its headlights turned on; that when plaintiff driver turned onto the 120-foot strip defendant pulled down his sun visor because he was blinded by the lights on plaintiffs' car that after the visor was down defendant could see only 10 or 12 feet ahead; that defendant with his vision thus limited proceeded on his right side of the road close to the shoulder; and that plaintiffs' car collided with defendant's car by suddenly crossing to the wrong side of the road.
2. Evidence considered and Held not to show that the damages awarded were excessive and granted under the influence of passion and prejudice.
Appeal from District Court, Pope County; E. R. Selnes, Judge.
Leslie C. Scholle, of Minneapolis, for appellants.
Johnson, Winter & Lundquist, of Wheaton, and Dell & Dell and J. J. McCarten, all of Alexandria, for respondent.
These two cases involve an automobile collision in which defendant, G T. Aasen, recovered a verdict against plaintiffs, Hanson and Moan, as the owner and driver, respectively, of one of the automobiles involved. Plaintiffs named appeal.
The questions on the appeal are (1) whether the evidence showed as a matter of law that defendant was guilty of contributory negligence and (2) whether the damages awarded were excessive and appear to have been granted under the influence of passion and prejudice.
The collision occurred at about seven o'clock in the evening of October 10, 1945, in a rural area on a strip of highway about 120 feet long extending east and west between two curves on a highway the general direction of which was north and south and which, going north, curved to the east at the west end of the 120-foot strip and to the north at the east end of it. The surface of the road was dry. It was dusk. The weather was clear, and the drivers were able to see without the aid of headlights, but, notwithstanding that fact, both drivers had their headlights turned on.
Except as to the directions in which the cars were going, the evidence is in irreconcilable conflict. Defendant was going north, and plaintiff Hanson's car was going south. As defendant turned to the east onto the 120-foot strip, Hanson's car was coming down a hill approaching the curve at the east end thereof. Each car at that time was on its right side of the road. There were no other cars on the highway. Each driver had a clear view of the entire 120-foot strip. The right lane of each driver was open and unobstructed for travel. When the cars were about 120 feet apart, defendant pulled down his sun visor because the lights on the Hanson car blinded him. With the visor down, defendant could see only 10 or 12 feet ahead. He continued forward, keeping on his right side close to the shoulder. According to the testimony on behalf of defendant, his speed was between 20 and 25 miles per hour and that of the Hanson car was between 40 and 50 miles per hour. Almost instantly after defendant pulled down his sun visor, the Hanson car crossed over to defendant's side of the road, causing a head-on collision. According to plaintiffs' version, the Hanson car kept on its right side of the road; its speed was about 15 to 20 miles per hour and the speed of defendant's car about 40 to 45 miles per hour, and defendant's car crossed to its left or the wrong side of the road, thereby causing the collision. Plaintiffs contend that the evidence shows that if defendant had turned about two feet to his right the collision would have been avoided. Defendant contends that it shows that he could not have got any farther to his right without danger of going off the road into a lake.
1. Plaintiffs contend that under the rule of Orrvar v. Morgan, 189 Minn 306, 249 N.W. 42, defendant was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. In the Orrvar case, it appeared that on a clear night and on a dry pavement plaintiff drove at a speed making it impossible for him to stop or turn his car within the space illuminated by his headlights and collided with the rear of defendant's truck, which was standing in the right traffic lane without any taillights. The basic reasons for holding plai...
To continue reading
Request your trial