Allen v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 19 December 1919 |
| Docket Number | 21,577 |
| Parties | HANS ALLEN v. ARNOLD E. JOHNSON |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Goodhue county to recover $15,000 for personal injuries. The answer alleged that plaintiff carelessly and negligently moved against and collided with defendant's automobile and thereby caused some injury to himself from which he had recovered. The case was tried before Johnson, J., who when plaintiff rested denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action and at the close of the testimony denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for $6,000. From an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Negligence -- contributory negligence -- verdict sustained by evidence.
1. The evidence sustains a finding of the jury that the defendant whose auto came into collision with the plaintiff, was negligent, and it was not such as to require a finding that the plaintiff was negligent.
Use of automobile -- charge to jury.
2. There was no error in calling the attention of the jury to the dangers attendant upon the use of an automobile, when explaining the care required, and the charge was not to the effect that an auto is a dangerous instrumentality.
Duty of driver to give warning.
3. There was no error in instructing as to the duty of a driver to give warnings, nor in reading a portion of G.S. 1913 § 2632, relative to the duties of a driver when approaching a pedestrian or a street intersection.
Refusal to give requests to jury.
4. There was no error in refusing to give requested instructions upon contributory negligence nor the relative rights of an auto and a pedestrian in a street, both matters being covered by the general charge.
Instructions to jury not prejudicial.
5. There was no prejudicial error in instructing the jury that the defendant claimed that the plaintiff walked in front of his auto and was injured, although his claim was that he walked into it.
Verdict not excessive.
6. The verdict is not excessive.
Mohn & Mohn and A. J. Rockne, for appellant.
Samuel A. Anderson and P. B. Green, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.
1. The plaintiff on the night of February 4, 1918, while he was walking home, came into collision with the defendant's auto on one of the streets of Red Wing and was injured. He was walking on the easterly side of West avenue going in a southerly direction, and was approaching an intersection of streets which is called in the evidence the "square." From this square streets radiated in five directions sufficiently accurately stated as north, east south, southwest and west. West avenue proceeded from this "square" in a southwesterly direction. The defendant was approaching from the southwest along the avenue in his auto. The plaintiff, according to his testimony, saw the auto before he got to the square, continued about half way across the square, going south, then looked again and saw the auto approaching on West avenue slightly southwesterly of the westerly side of the square. He then continued on his way and was struck by the fender of the auto before reaching the other side. He heard no signal or warning. When he started across from the middle of the street, the auto, upon his theory, was southwesterly of the square and a safe distance away. It might turn in his direction and go east on the street he was crossing, or it might go north on West avenue. If it went north he was not in its path. The jury could find that he might reasonably believe that there was time to get across though the auto came his way, and that he was not negligent in doing as he did, and it could find that if the defendant had kept a proper lookout and had given a warning and had gone slowly he could have avoided the accident and that he was wanting in care. The night was still and cold and there was nothing in the street to distract the attention of either the plaintiff or the defendant. When an accident occurs under the circumstances disclosed it is the result of an unexplained accident or of the negligence of one or...
To continue reading
Request your trial