Bartley v. Fritz
| Decision Date | 21 April 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 31990.,31990. |
| Citation | 205 Minn. 192,285 N.W. 484 |
| Parties | BARTLEY v. FRITZ. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Chippewa County; G. E. Qvale, Judge.
Action by Thomas Bartley against Marvin Fritz for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial after a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.
Order reversed and new trial granted.
Douglas P. Hunt, of Montevideo, and Alva R. Hunt, of Litchfield, for appellant.
Freeman & King and Charles P. Le Richeux, all of Minneapolis, and Paul G. Kief, of Montevideo, for respondent.
Appeal from an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial after a directed verdict in favor of defendant.
Plaintiff instituted the action to recover damages for injuries sustained by him on the night of October 26, 1937, as the result of a collision between an automobile owned and driven by one Robert Schulte, in which plaintiff was riding as a guest, and a stock truck owned by defendant and parked, according to plaintiff's testimony, on the traveled portion of highway No. 17. The accident occurred within the limits of the village of Clara City, through which the highway passes in a southeasterly and northwesterly direction.
On the evening in question and before the happening of the accident, defendant was making preparations for taking a truck load of hogs from Clara City to South St. Paul. Fred and Charles Jaenisch planned to accompany him. Having made arrangements for loading the hogs and desiring to rest for a few hours before starting on the trip, defendant went to his home, which is located about three blocks northwest of the business district of the village and on the southwest side of the highway. After the hogs were loaded, a helper and the Jaenisches drove the truck to defendant's home and parked it in front of the house on the right side of the highway facing southeast, i. e., toward the business district. The men went into the house, where they remained about three-quarters of an hour, during which time the engine of the truck was idling and the front and rear lights were burning.
At about a quarter of twelve, defendant and his companions came out of the home and approached the truck. The former and Fred Jaenisch entered the cab. Whether Charles Jaenisch had entered or was about to enter, and whether the truck was standing or moving, at this moment, are disputed questions of fact.
It was at this time that the car in which the plaintiff was riding approached from the northwest and ran into the truck. Neither the driver nor the plaintiff saw the truck until just before the impact. As a result of the collision plaintiff sustained injuries for which he seeks damages.
A brief description of the scene may be pertinent. There is somewhat of a grade to the highway as it passes from the business section of the village past defendant's home to the northwest. The crest of the rise is at a school house located about a block northwest of defendant's home. Beyond the school, the road turns to the north and the grade drops quite abruptly. A street light which was burning at the time of the accident is located about 150 feet northwest of the place where the accident happened. The highway, as it passes defendant's home, is 80 feet wide, has a 22 foot tarvia top (marked in the center with a yellow line), and 5 foot gravel shoulders.
At the close of the testimony, defendant moved the court for an instructed verdict "for the reason and on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to sustain the burden of proof and prove any actionable negligence on behalf of the defendant which caused or concurred in causing his injuries." In granting the motion the court said: "As the Court understands the law applicable to the facts in this case the Court cannot help but grant the motion and, Members of the Jury, while in cases tried to the jury, the facts are ordinarily for the jury to determine and the law for the Court, it is also the duty of the Court to declare the law upon any given state of the evidence, and taking the best view of the evidence in favor of the plaintiff and disregarding the evidence on the part of the defendant it becomes here the duty of the court to charge you to return a verdict in favor of the defendant."
From the foregoing we cannot determine whether the trial court was of the opinion that plaintiff had failed to establish negligence on the part of defendant or whether it was of the opinion that, even though the issue of defendant's negligence was for the jury, plaintiff had failed to show any causal connection between such negligence and the injuries he sustained. We suspect, however, that the motion was granted on the latter ground because it quite clearly appears that there was a jury question in determining whether there was negligence on defendant's part in leaving the truck parked at night in the manner and under the circumstances claimed by plaintiff. So to decide does not require a holding that defendant violated 3 Mason Minn.St.1938 Supp. § 2720-217, which applies only to highways outside of a business or residence district. If defendant or his employe parked the truck on the tarviated portion of the highway in the manner described by plaintiff's witnesses, he violated 3 Mason Minn.St.1938 Supp. § 2720-220, which reads: "Except where angle parking is permitted by local ordinance every vehicle stopped or parked upon a roadway where there is an adjacent curb shall be so stopped or parked with the right-hand wheels of such vehicle parallel with and within 12 inches of the right-hand curb, provided that such exception shall only apply to a state trunk highway after approval by the commissioner."
Apart from this statute, there is a common law duty on the part of the operator of a truck or automobile to...
To continue reading
Request your trial