Christensen v. Hennepin Transp. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 33339.,33339. |
| Citation | 10 N.W.2d 406,215 Minn. 394 |
| Parties | CHRISTENSEN v. HENNEPIN TRANSP. CO., Inc. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Hugo O. Hanft, Judge.
Action by Eleanor Christensen against the Hennepin Transportation Company, Incorporated, for injuries sustained in a collision between an automobile and a truck. Verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appeals from an order denying her motion for a new trial.
Reversed and new trial granted.
E. F. Matthews, of St. Paul, for appellant.
Johnson, Sands & Brumfield, of Minneapolis, for respondent.
Plaintiff sues to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision between an automobile, driven by her husband, in which she was riding and a truck (tractor-trailer) owned by defendant, operated by its employe. Plaintiff claimed that defendant's negligence caused the collision. She alleged in the complaint: That "at that time and place, the Defendant and its agents and servants carelessly, unlawfully and recklessly drove part way across the intersection of Hampden and University Avenues, and then without any warning or signal whatsoever, applied the brakes of its tractor and trailer truck so that it was impossible for the automobile in which Plaintiff was riding to stop, and that the same crashed into the rear end of said tractor and trailer truck." Also that she "was invited to get into the Chevrolet automobile heretofore described by Peter Christensen, co-owner of said automobile, who at said time had the control and custody of said automobile, and she accepted his invitation to ride therein as a guest and passenger."
Defendant denied negligence, alleged that the accident was caused by the husband's contributory negligence, and that his contributory negligence was imputable to the wife.
The collision occurred after dark on the evening of November 5, 1941, at the intersection of University and Hampden avenues in St. Paul. Both vehicles were proceeding easterly on University avenue, a wide street with double street car tracks in the center and with more than one lane on either side for vehicular traffic. There was a "Stop-and-Go" sign at the intersection at Hampden avenue.
At a point about 250 feet west of Hampden avenue plaintiff's husband attempted to pass the truck, the left wheels of which were over the southernmost street car rail. He sounded his horn as a signal for the truck to move over to the right, but it did not yield. The road being clear of on-coming traffic and clearly visible, the husband started to pass the truck on the left. He was going from 25 to 28 miles and the truck 26 or 27 miles per hour. When he got to a point about even with the front of the truck, a westbound automobile about three hundred feet ahead suddenly swung over onto the south side of the street and proceeded in the lane in which plaintiff's husband was driving directly toward him. He then took his foot off the gas pedal and dropped behind the truck. He was at that time about ten feet behind the truck. Just as he got behind the truck it suddenly stopped at Hampden avenue.
The parties gave different versions as to what occurred at the intersection. Plaintiff's version, testified to by her husband, was that he could plainly see the "Stop-and-Go" sign on the north side of the street; that the green or "Go" signal was on as the front of the truck entered the intersection; that the yellow signal warning that the signal was to be changed to "Stop" went on when the front of the truck was halfway across the intersection; that the truck stopped suddenly without giving any warning of intention to do so; and that because of lack of such warning he collided with the rear of the truck before he had an opportunity to apply his brakes. The over-all length of the truck was between 34 and 40 feet. When its front end was near or at the center of the intersection, the rear end extended over the west line of the intersection. Hence the collision occurred west of the intersection line. No other vehicles were in the intersection at the time. Defendant's version, as given by the driver of the truck, was that he stopped at the intersection line when the signal light turned from "Go" to yellow without entering the intersection with any part of the truck. No claim was made by defendant that its driver gave any warning of the intended stop.
Plaintiff offered in evidence an ordinance of the city of St. Paul requiring a vehicle such as defendant's truck to be equipped with a lamp or device (§ 98[a]) "so constructed and located on the vehicle as to give an adequate signal of intention to stop." The offer was ruled out because plaintiff's husband was aware of the presence of the truck on the street and because the ordinance was not pleaded. The provisions of the ordinance are similar to those of Minn.St.1941, § 169.19, subds. 7 and 8, Mason.St.1940 Supp. §§ 2720-194 and 2720-195, of the highway traffic regulation act.
The husband testified that the car which he was driving was equipped with good brakes and that he could stop it almost instantly at the rate of speed he was then going.
Plaintiff and her husband purchased the car about eight months prior to the collision. Title thereto was registered in plaintiff's name only. Her husband was in the potato business. On the evening in question he decided to go to his place of business after dinner to look after the fire to protect the potatoes from freezing. He testified: "Well, when I got home, we had both just come from work, so I told my wife I had to go down and fix the fire in our place, because we just have a coal fire to keep the potatoes from freezing. So I asked her if she wanted to take a ride down there with me. She said she would; so after she got in the car, I suggested we drop over by her mother's — ". Plaintiff's offer to show the facts and circumstances relative to the purchase of the car and the payments of the purchase price were ruled out. The trial court stated in connection with his ruling: Apparently plaintiff acquiesced in those views. The case was tried upon the theory that they were a correct statement of the law.
The court held that the husband's negligence, if any, was imputable to plaintiff and so instructed the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of defendant, with the surplusage (which the court should have directed to be eliminated) "by reason of the fact that both the defendant and plaintiff were negligent." Plaintiff appeals.
On appeal, as below, plaintiff contends that the court erred in excluding the city ordinance and in holding as a matter of law that plaintiff's husband's negligence, if any, was imputable to her. Defendant contends that the rulings were correct and further that it was not negligent and that the husband's negligence appears as a matter of law.
1. Where traffic is regulated by a "Stop-and-Go" traffic control device as required by Minn.St.1941, § 169.06, subd. 5, Mason St.1940 Supp. § 2720-164, it is the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle to be on the lookout for, to discover, and to obey implicitly traffic control signals. By the use of a traffic control device, public authority undertakes to give all signals for the movement of traffic, thereby dispensing with signals by drivers, which, absent such regulation, they otherwise are required by statute to give. Consequently, where a driver stops at the intersection line pursuant to a "Stop" signal, he is not required to give any signal before he stops, although a stop signal might otherwise be required of him by statute. Turnbloom v. Crichton, 189 Minn. 588, 250 N.W. 570. In effect, the court below so instructed the jury. If defendant's version that, in obedience to the "Stop" signal, it stopped its truck at the intersection line were true, it was not guilty of negligence for failing to give some other signal of its intention to stop. The jury was not bound to adopt defendant's version. By finding defendant negligent, it is plain that the jury rejected defendant's version of the facts. The conflicting evidence made the question one of fact for the jury. Fredhom v. Smith, 193 Minn. 569, 259 N.W. 80. Where a vehicle is within the intersection when the yellow light shows, it may be driven cautiously through the intersection. Id. § 169.06, subd. 5(b)(1), (§ 2720-164[b]1). Plaintiff claims that defendant's truck was within the intersection when the yellow sign went on. In that situation, defendant's driver was required to exercise due care with respect to other traffic. Having exercised its right to enter the intersection when the "Go" signal was on, defendant could not abandon it without regard to the rights of others. The fact that the forward driver has entered an intersection may lead a driver to the rear to believe, and thus rely on the fact, that he intends to proceed across it. Entering and stopping therein causes the rear driver to be misled. Stopping in an intersection after exercising the right to proceed without giving proper signal of intention to stop is negligence as to other vehicles. Sebern v. Northwest Cities Gas Co., 167 Wash. 600, 10 P.2d 210. In Hladick v. Williams, 292 Mass. 470, 198 N.E. 662, the Massachusetts court applied the rule controlling here. There, as here, the evidence, while conflicting, warranted the court (the trial was without a jury) in finding that the defendant, whose automobile was partly within the intersection, stopped in obedience to the "Stop" sign without giving a stop signal to warn the car in which plaintiffs were riding and which was immediately behind defendant's of his intention so to do. The court held that the question of defendant's negligence was one of fact and sustained findings in favor of the passengers...
To continue reading
Request your trial