Dunkelbeck v. Meyer

• Decision Date: 31 May 1918
• Docket Number: No. 20874.,20874.
• Citation: 140 Minn. 283,167 N.W. 1034
• Parties: DUNKELBECK v. MEYER.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

140 Minn. 283

167 N.W. 1034

DUNKELBECK

v.MEYER.

No. 20874.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 31, 1918.

Appeal from District Court, Blue Earth County; W. L. Comstock, Judge.

Action by Henry Dunkelbeck against William Meyer. Verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The evidence sustains a finding that defendant in passing plaintiff on a highway negligently collided with him, and, that plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. The fact that the driver of a vehicle fails to give way to one passing from behind is not negligence unless the road is of sufficient width to permit passing and the forward driver knows or ought to know of the purpose to pass.

Evidence of speed was properly received. It was not necessary that a witness giving an estimate of speed be an expert.

It was not error to charge the jury that it is the duty of a driver desiring to pass from the rear to give a signal indicating his desire. C. J. Laurisch, of Mankato, for appellant.

Pfau & Pfau and H. A. Johnson, all of Mankato, for respondent.

HALLAM, J.

[1] 1. Plaintiff was driving on a public highway with a horse and top buggy. Defendant passed from behind in an automobile. As defendant turned into the road after passing, some poles he carried in his automobile struck plaintiff's horse causing the horse to run away and injure plaintiff and damage his buggy. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $300.

The evidence amply sustains a finding that defendant was negligent. He turned back into the road too abruptly. He complains that plaintiff hugged the center of the road, gave him no room, and that an obstruction by the roadside compelled him to turn in sharply as he passed. The fact that plaintiff kept the center of the road gave defendant no license to drive upon him. The evidence as to the alleged obstruction ahead is not conclusive in relieving defendant from fault.

[2] 2. It is urged that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in keeping the center of the road and not checking his speed so as to allow defendant to pass. If plaintiff knew or ought to have known of defendant's approach, this would be true. He says he did not know of defendant's approach until he saw defendant at his side ‘just shooting past,’ and that although he was on the alert for signals from behind he heard none.

If the road was of sufficient width to permit defendant's passing, plaintiff was...