Armstrong v. Minneapolis, Anoka & Cuyuna Range Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 17 November 1922 |
| Docket Number | 22,929 |
| Citation | 191 N.W. 47,153 Minn. 374 |
| Parties | F. H. ARMSTRONG v. MINNEAPOLIS, ANOKA & CUYUNA RANGE RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $1,200 for injury to plaintiff's motor truck. The case was tried before Hale, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $400. From an order denying its motion for a new trial defendant appealed. Affirmed.
When verdict in motor vehicle collision case will not be reversed.
1. Where there is a collision between motor vehicles at a street intersection and defendant's negligence and plaintiff's contributory negligence are put in issue, the determination of both questions is peculiarly within the province of the jury and their verdict should not be disturbed unless the proof is such that upon no rational basis could reasonable minds draw different conclusions concerning the presence or absence of due care.
Damages awarded plaintiff not excessive.
2. The evidence did not conclusively establish contributory negligence on the part of the driver of plaintiff's truck and the damages awarded by the jury were not excessive.
Stevens & Stevens, for appellant.
R. F Merriam, for respondent.
Plaintiff was the owner of a motor truck and brought an action for damages resulting from a collision between the truck and defendant's street car. He recovered a verdict and defendant appealed from a denial of its motion for a new trial.
The collision occurred at the intersection of Eighth avenue Northeast and Second street Northeast in the city of Minneapolis. There is a double line of street car tracks on Second street. At the time of the accident the street car was southbound on the westerly track and the truck was eastbound on Eighth avenue. The streets were dry and it was near noon on a bright June day.
According to the testimony of the truck driver, when he was about 75 feet west of Second street he looked north and saw the street car about a block away. He also noticed two little boys playing in the street, and, to avoid them, slightly changed his course, swerving towards the center of the street. When he had passed them, he straightened his course, intending to go on across the street car tracks, and looked towards the north a second time to see where the street car was and saw it only about 70 feet away, approaching at a speed which he estimated at 30 miles an hour. The truck was then within 20 or 25 feet of the street car track and a collision was imminent. In an attempt to avert it, the truck driver disengaged the clutch, applied the brakes and tried to swing to the south on Second street, but his motor stopped running and the oncoming street car struck the truck and drove it against the curb on the west side of Second street. When the street car came to a stop it was somewhat south of the south crosswalk on Eighth avenue. The plaintiff's case rested almost wholly on this testimony. It was corroborated to some extent by two young boys, one of whom testified that when the truck driver was going to cross the street "the street car bumped into him and dragged him a pretty far ways." "It (the truck) was going to turn and then the car hit it."
The witnesses for the defendant were the motorman and conductor on the car, a passenger and a man on the street who saw the collision. Their testimony was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial