Arseneau v. Sweet
| Decision Date | 24 December 1908 |
| Docket Number | 15,802 - (101) |
| Citation | 119 N.W. 46,106 Minn. 257 |
| Parties | EMMA ARSENEAU v. JOHN C. SWEET |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover $500 for personal injuries. The street at the place of the accident was eighteen feet wide from the outside rail of the track to the curb. The case was tried before Charles L. Smith, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $225. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Automobile -- Negligence and Contributory Negligence.
Respondent was struck by appellant's automobile while she was about to board a street car in a public street. Held, the question of respondent's contributory negligence and appellant's negligence were questions of fact for the consideration of the jury.
Verdict not Excessive.
The verdict is not excessive.
C. J Bartleson, for appellant.
Willoughby M. Babcock, for respondent.
Respondent recovered a verdict in the court below for $225 for injuries which she claimed to have sustained in being struck by an automobile, driven by appellant, while she was in the act of boarding a street car in the city of Minneapolis. Appeal was taken from an order denying appellant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
According to respondent's testimony, she was standing on the curb on Central avenue, near the intersection of Second street, waiting for the car going toward the city. She saw the car coming down Central avenue, stepped into the street, and was within two or three feet of the street car track, and about the middle of the car, facing it, when it stopped. She turned towards the gates a step or two, when the automobile struck her, and in order to save herself from falling she threw herself on the machine, and held onto it, and was carried a short distance. She did not see the automobile, and did not hear any horn or signal. Respondent is corroborated by several witnesses upon many of the important features of her testimony. All agree she was standing within three or four feet of the car tracks when the automobile hit her, and that the space between the curb and the point where she was standing, a distance of about fourteen feet, was unobstructed; that four or five other persons left the curb at about the same time for the purpose of taking the car; and that respondent was the last in line. Several witnesses testified that the automobile was driven rapidly until it approached the crossing, when it slowed down, and that it collided with respondent just as she turned towards the gates of the car, within three or four feet from the track.
Appellant testified, and he was corroborated by a man who was riding with him, that upon reaching the Second street crossing, he slackened his speed to two or three miles an hour; that he saw the street car, which he said was running along about parallel to him; that as he passed over Second street he saw a group of of people going from the curb towards the car tracks; that he turned his machine a little bit towards the curb, so that the nearest wheel was within four or five feet of it; that he was far enough away from the car tracks to permit the party to pass between the machine and the car tracks, but that as he got close to them respondent, having lagged behind the others, did not keep straight ahead, but turned towards the automobile; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial