Chambers v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, a Corporation

• Decision Date: 26 March 1917
• Citation: Chambers v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, a Corporation, 163 N.W. 824, 37 N.D. 377 (N.D. 1917)
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

163 N.W. 824

37 N.D. 377

GENEVA U. CHAMBERS v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL, & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation

Supreme Court of North Dakota

March 26, 1917

Rehearing denied June 16, 1917.

Appeal from Ramsey County, Chas. M. Cooley, Special Judge.

Affirmed.

Flynn & Traynor (A. H. Bright and John L. Erdall, of counsel), for appellant.

When request is made it is proper for the jury, under directions of the court, to view the premises where the accident occurred even though things have been changed to some extent since the accident.Osgood v. Chicago,154 Ill. 19441 N.E. 40;Springer v. Chicago,135 Ill. 552, 12L R. A. 609, 26 N.E. 514;Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v Sun Ins. Office,85 Minn. 65, 88 N.W. 272;Spurrier Lumber Co. v. Dodson, 30 Okla. 412, 120 P. 934;38 Cyc. 1313.

The appellate court has power to revise the trial judge's action upon a motion for a view by the jury.Rodgers v. Hodge,18 Ann. Cas. 732, note;Beck v. Staats,80 Neb. 482, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 768, 114 N.W. 633;South Covington & C. Street R. Co. v. Finan, 153 Ky. 340, 155 S.W. 742.

Where the court's instructions to the jury as to the application of the annuity and mortality tables are not accurate, they either mislead or confuse the jury.Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Powell,127 Ga. 805, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 769, 56 S.E. 1006, 9 Ann. Cas. 553;Ruehl v. Lidgerwood Rural Teleph. Co.23 N.D. 6, L.R.A. , , 135 N.W. 793, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 680;Rofer v. Northern P. R. Co.25 N.D. 394, 142 N.W. 22.

The remarks of counsel with reference to "his opinion" as to the admissibility of certain evidence and the wrongful admission of evidence in the first place are not offset or cured by the court thereafter striking out such evidence.The damage has been done.Crisp v. State Bank,32 N.D. 263, 155 N.W. 78.

Questions asked a witness touching former and different statements from his present testimony are proper, and their disallowance is error.7 Enc. Ev. 67;Taugher v. Northern P. R. Co.21 N.D. 111, 129 N.W. 747;Ashton v. Ashton, 11 S.D. 610, 79 N.W. 1001;40 Cyc. 2714.

"Every such automobile or motorcycle shall also be provided with lights, the automobile to carry not less than two lights in front of such machine, one of which to be on either side, and the motorcycle to carry at least one light."Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 2973,2976;Rebillard v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. L.R.A. 1915B, 953, 133 C. C. A. 9, 216 F. 506.

A failure to comply with this statute was clearly such negligence as to prevent a recovery on the part of those in charge of the car.Lauson v. Fond du Lac,141 Wis. 57, 25 L.R.A.(N.S.) 40, 135 Am. St. Rep. 30, 123 N.W. 629.

Running an automobile without sufficient light was negligence in itself, regardless of any statute sufficient to defeat a recovery.Giles v. Ternes,93 Kan. 140, 143 P. 491;Newcomb v. Boston Protective Dept.146 Mass. 596, 4 Am. St. Rep. 354, 16 N.E. 555;Feeley v. Melrose,205 Mass. 329, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.)) 1156, 137 Am. St. Rep. 445, 91 N.E. 306;Chase v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co.208 Mass. 137, 94 N.E. 377;Zoltovski v. Gzella,159 Mich. 620, 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 435, 134 Am. St. Rep. 752, 124 N.W. 527;Fenn v. Clark.11 Cal.App. 79, 103 P. 944;Griffith v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.44 F. 574: Morris v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co.26 F. 22;Cable v. Spokane & I. E. R. Co.150 Wash. 619, 23L. R. A.(N.S.) 1224, 97 P. 744;Donnelly v. Brooklyn City R. Co.109 N.Y. 16, 15 N.E. 733;Nelson v. Spokane, 45 Wash. 31, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 636, 122 Am. St. Rep. 881, 87 P. 1048, 13 Ann. Cas. 280.

To drive an automobile of great weight and power at night in the dark, under such circumstances and such conditions that an obstruction or excavation cannot be avoided within the distance lighted by the lamp or lamps on the car, is negligence such as will bar recovery by those in the car.It was a violation of the law.Comp. Laws 1913, § 2976 (b);Feeley v. Melrose,205 Mass. 329, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1156, 137 Am. St. Rep. 445, 91 N.E. 306;Chase v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co.208 Mass. 137, 94 N.E. 377;Dudley v. Northampton Street R. Co.202 Mass. 443, 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 561, 89 N.E. 25.

The right to operate such machines is not an unrestricted right, but it is a privilege which can be exercised only in accordance with the legislative restrictions.Ex parte Kneedler, 243 Mo. 632, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 622, 147 S.W. 983, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 923;Doherty v. Ayer,197 Mass. 241, 14 L.R.A.(N.S.) 816, 125 Am. St. Rep. 355, 83 N.E. 677;Banks v. Highland Street R. Co.136 Mass. 485;Holden v. McGillicuddy,215 Mass. 563, 102 N.E. 923;Dean v. Boston Elev. R. Co.217 Mass. 495, 105 N.E. 616;Rebillard v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. L.R.A. 1915B, 953, 133 C. C. A. 9, 216 F. 506;Little v. Hackett,116 U.S. 366, 29 L.Ed. 652, 6 S.Ct. 391;Union P. R. Co. v. Lapsley,16 L.R.A. 800, 2 C. C. A. 149, 4 U. S. App. 542, 51 F. 174;Winona v. Botzet,23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 204, 94 C. C. A. 563, 169 F. 321, 21 Am. Neg. Rep. 445;Dyer v. Erie R. Co.71 N.Y. 229, 12 Am. Neg. Cas. 347;Brickell v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co.120 N.Y. 290, 17 Am. St. Rep. 648, 24 N.E. 449;Covington Transfer Co. v. Kelly,36 Ohio St. 86, 38 Am. Rep. 558, 12 Am. Neg. Cas. 461;Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Shacklet,105 Ill. 364, 44 Am. Rep. 791;Davis v. Chicago R. I. & P. R. Co.16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 424, 88 C. C. A. 488, 159 F. 10;Brommer v. Pennsylvania R. Co.29 L.R.A.(N.S.) 924, 103 C. C. A. 135, 179 F. 577;Dean v. Pennsylvania R. Co.129 Pa. 524, 6 L.R.A. 143, 15 Am. St. Rep. 733, 18 A. 718.

Where, with full knowledge of all such facts, plaintiff still remained in the car, no recovery can be had.Plaintiff could have avoided the danger.Shultz v. Old Colony Street R. Co.193 Mass. 323, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 597, 118 Am. St. Rep. 502, 79 N.E. 873, 9 Ann. Cas. 402;Partridge v. Boston & M. R. Co.107 C. C. A. 49, 184 F. 211;Davis v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co.16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 424, 88 C. C. A. 488, 159 F. 10;Monongahela River Consol. Coal & Coke Co. v. Schinnerer, 117 C. C. A. 193, 196 F. 382.

The circumstances and conditions coming to plaintiff's notice at the time and after the lights went out were such as to indicate danger and gave him an opportunity to avert it, and he should not have proceeded further, and in such case negligence is just as strongly imputed to him as to the driver.Reynolds v. Great Northern R. Co.29 L.R.A. 695, 16 C. C. A. 435, 32 U. S. App. 577, 69 F. 808;Lawrence v. Fitchburg & L. Street R. Co.201 Mass. 489, 87 N.E. 898;Jefson v. Crosstown Street R. Co.72 Misc. 103, 129 N.Y.S. 233.

His acts really amount to an acquiescence in the driver's carelessness, and render him chargeable therewith, and defeat his right to recover for injuries sustained.Read v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co.123 A.D. 228, 107 N.Y.S. 1068;Pouch v. Staten Island Midland R. Co.142 A.D. 16, 126 N.Y.S. 738;Brommer v. Pennsylvania R. Co.29 L.R.A.(N.S.) 924, 103 C. C. A. 135, 179 F. 577;Brickell v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co.120 N.Y. 290, 17 Am. St. Rep. 648, 24 N.E. 449;Stone v. Northern P. R. Co.29 N.D. 480, 151 N.W. 36;Christopherson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co.28 N.D. 128, L.R.A. 1915A, 761, 147 N.W. 791, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 683;Lightfoot v. Winnebago Traction Co.123 Wis. 479, 102 N.W. 30;Beaucage v. Mercer, 206 Mass. 492, 138 Am. St. Rep. 401, 92 N.E. 774.

The wife may be denied a recovery because of the negligence of her husband while riding with him.Yahn v. Ottumwa,60 Iowa 429, 15 N.W. 257;Donnelly v. Brooklyn City R. Co.109 N.Y. 16, 15 N.E. 733.

Plaintiff was "conscious of the danger" of riding in the automobile without lights.He"made no objection or effort to avoid the danger," and he was guilty of contributory negligence.Omaha & R. Valley R. Co. v Talbot,48 Neb. 627, 67 N.W. 599;Hanson v. Manchester Street R. Co.73 N.H. 395, 62 A. 595;New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Robbins,38 Ind.App. 172, 76 N.E. 804;Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Boyts,16 Ind.App. 640, 45 N.E. 812;Brannen v. Kokomo, G. & J. Gravel Road Co.115 Ind. 115, 7 Am. St. Rep. 411, 17 N.E. 202;McDonald v. Yoder,80 Kan. 25, 101 P. 468;Vincennes v. Thuis,28 Ind.App. 523, 63 N.E. 315;Bush v. Union P. R. Co.62 Kan. 709, 64 P. 624;Holden v. Missouri R. Co.177 Mo. 456, 76 S.W. 973;Colorado & S. R. Co. v. Thomas,33 Colo. 517, 70 L.R.A. 681, 81 P. 801, 3 Ann. Cas. 700, 18 Am. Neg. Rep. 316;Lynn v. Goodwin,170 Cal. 112, L.R.A. 1915E, 588, 148 P. 927, 9 N. C. C. A. 915;Flynn v. Chicago City R. Co.250 Ill. 460, 95 N.E. 449;29 Cyc. 460;Texas Co. v. Voloz, Tex. Civ. App. ,162 S.W. 377;Platte & D. Canal & Mill. Co. v. Dowell,17 Colo. 376, 30 P. 68;Osborne v. Van Dyke,113 Iowa 557, 54 L.R.A. 367, 85 N.W. 784;Klatt v. N. C. Foster Lumber Co.97 Wis. 641, 73 N.W. 563;Nickey v. Steuder,164 Ind. 189, 73 N.E. 117;Burk v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co.126 Iowa 730, 106 Am. St. Rep. 377, 102 N.W. 793, 18 Am. Neg. Rep. 62;Tvedt v. Wheeler,70 Minn. 161, 72 N.W. 1062;Kelley v. Anderson,15 S.D. 107, 87 N.W. 579;Smith v. Milwaukee Builders' & T. Exch.91 Wis. 360, 30 L.R.A. 504, 51 Am. St. Rep. 912, 64 N.W. 1041;Richardson v. El Paso Consol. Gold Min. Co.51 Colo. 440, 118 P. 982;Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Pitchford,44 Okla. 197, 143 P. 1146;Beaver v. Mason, E. & Co.73 Ore. 36, 143 P. 1000;Connell v. Harris,23 Cal.App. 537, 138 P. 949;Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Skeel,182 Ind. 593, 106 N.E. 365, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 474, 7 N. C. C. A. 724;Scragg v. Sallee,24 Cal.App. 133, 140 P. 706;Morgan v. Bross,64 Ore. 63, 129 P. 118;Fox v. Barekman,178 Ind. 572, 99 N.E. 989;Westover v. Grand Rapids R. Co.180 Mich. 373, 147 N.W. 630;Schaar v. Conforth,128 Minn. 460, 151 N.W. 275, 8 N. C. C. A. 1079;Amberg v. Kinley,214 N.Y. 531, L. R. A. 1915E, 519, 108 N.E. 830, 9 N. C. C. A. 552;...