Forster v. Consumers' Wholesale Supply Co.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 26629.,26629. |
| Citation | 174 Minn. 105,218 N.W. 249 |
| Parties | FORSTER v. CONSUMERS' WHOLESALE SUPPLY CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; F. E. Reed, Judge.
Action by Alexander Forster against the Consumers' Wholesale Supply Company. From an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Where plaintiff, driving his automobile on a paved highway, on a dark evening, met a bus, turned out to the edge of the pavement to pass same, and, while so doing, watched the roadway and did not look ahead, and then immediately turned slightly back towards the center of the road and increased his speed and collided with the rear of a truck, which he testified was parked or standing on the pavement without a rear light and which he did not see in time to avoid the collision, it is held that the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was one of fact for the jury.
The evidence is held sufficient to sustain the finding of negligence on the part of the operator of the truck, and sufficient to sustain the verdict for plaintiff as reduced. Maugridge S. Robb, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
A. A. Tenner, E. J. Lien, and Sweet & Johnson, all of Minneapolis, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.
Action to recover for personal injury and property damage in an automobile collision, claimed to have been caused by the negligence of defendant's servant.
1. Plaintiff was driving his automobile upon a paved highway, going from St. Cloud towards Minneapolis, and collided with the rear of a truck operated by defendant's servant. The collision happened at about 6:30 p. m. on a dark December evening. The pavement was somewhat icy. Plaintiff met a passenger bus and turned out to his right, to the edge of the pavement, to pass same. While so doing he kept watch of the pavement and was not looking ahead. He slackened his speed while passing and, as soon as the bus was passed, he turned slightly back towards the center of the pavement, increased his speed, and collided with the rear of defendant's truck. Plaintiff claims that the truck was parked or standing on the pavement without a rear light, and that, under the circumstances, he could not and did not see it in time to avoid the collision. The headlights on his car were in proper condition. We do not attempt to give all the particulars.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial