Boerner v. Wiemann
| Decision Date | 29 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | 32208. |
| Citation | 289 N.W. 562,206 Minn. 548 |
| Parties | BOERNER v. WIEMANN. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Sibley County; Jos. J. Moriarty, Judge.
Action by Harold Boerner against Harry Wiemann for damages sustained in automobile collision. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court .
1. Where defendant in violation of statute, Laws 1937, c. 464, § 49, suddenly drove onto a public highway from a private driveway in violation of plaintiff's right of way and under circumstances showing that a collision would result, he was guilty of negligence as a matter of law.
2. Plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, where it appeared that defendant collided with him on a public highway by darting out suddenly from a private driveway, where view of defendant was obscured by a building, and plaintiff had no reason to anticipate defendant's unexpected appearance on the highway.
O. S. Vesta, of Arlington, for appellant.
Geo A. McKenzie and Everett L. Young, both of Gaylord, for respondent.
On July 27, 1938, plaintiff was driving his automobile east on a trunk highway through the village of Arlington at a lawful speed of not exceeding 30 miles per hour. It was early on a bright, clear evening with the sun still shinning. Defendant drove out of a private driveway from Timm's elevator on the south side of the street. View of the defendant was obscured from the west, from whence plaintiff was coming, by some buildings that were flush with the street and along the east side of which the private driveway was located. Consequently plaintiff could not see the defendant until he emerged onto the street. Defendant drove out on the cross-walk, where he stopped. He says that he then saw plaintiff coming from the west about 200 feet away. It does not appear how long defendant stopped, but meanwhile plaintiff was travelling toward him. Defendant testified that he then put his car in low gear and started into the street making a right turn to the east in front of plaintiff. Although defendant claims plaintiff hit him, the physical facts and the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses demonstrate that he hit plaintiff's car right in the middle on the right side. Defendant gave his speed as 5 to 10 miles per hour. It would have taken plaintiff about four and a fraction seconds from the time defendant first saw him to get to where the collision occurred, and it would have taken defendant about three seconds to go from where he stopped to the spot where the collision occurred,...
To continue reading
Request your trial