Chase v. Tingdale Bros., Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 November 1914
• Docket Number: No. 18976[200].,18976[200].
• Citation: 127 Minn. 401,149 N.W. 654
• Parties: CHASE v. TINGDALE BROS., Inc.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

127 Minn. 401

149 N.W. 654

CHASE

v.TINGDALE BROS., Inc.

No. 18976[200].

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 27, 1914.

Appeal from Municipal Court of Minneapolis; E. A. Montgomery, Judge.

Action by Laura B. Chase against Tingdale Bros., Incorporated. Verdict for defendant, and from denial of new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

In this action to recover damages to plaintiff's automobile sustained in a collision with the automobile of defendant it is held: Gen. St. 1913, s 2634, providing that all motor vehicles must be kept to the right of the center of the street, has no application under the facts in this case, and the burden of proof to show that defendant was negligent was upon plaintiff.

An inadvertently inaccurate instruction was not reversible error, the inaccuracy not being seasonably called to the attention of the trial court.

There was no prejudicial error in an instruction on the subject of damages or in a ruling on the admission of evidence relating to damages.

The evidence made a case for the jury, and supports the verdict. Jay W. Crane, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Keith, Evans, Thompson & Fairchild, of Minneapolis, for respondent.

BUNN, J.

Plaintiff was driving her electric automobile south on Park avenue, Minneapolis, at about 6:30 p. m., on October 28, 1913. She was on the right-hand side of the street about three feet from the curb, and was driving in a lawful and careful manner, when her car was struck by an automobile belonging to defendant and driven by its chauffeur. This action was to recover the damages sustained to plaintiff's car by the collision. The case was submitted to the jury, and a verdict for defendant was the result. Plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

Plaintiff claims prejudicial errors in the charge, and error in denying her motion for an instructed verdict in her favor. These claims are largely based upon the premises that plaintiff was driving on the right side of the street, and that defendant's car was on the wrong side of the street when the collision occurred. This is true only in a technical sense. The facts which the jury was justified in finding are these: Defendant's car was being driven north along the right-hand side of Park avenue about 6 feet from the curb, at a speed of from 10 to 15 miles per hour, when an electric car backed out of an alley or driveway in front. There were no lights on this car, and no warning had been given of its approach. Defendant's chauffeur saw the electric car suddenly loom up ahead, applied his brakes, and attempted to make a quick turn to the left to get around the rear of the electric; the pavement was wet and slippery because of the weather, the rear wheels of defendant's car skidded to the right, striking the right rear wheel of the electric. At substantially the same moment the front of defendant's car collided with plaintiff's automobile, causing the damage complained of.

[1] Plaintiff's claims here are centered upon the proposition...