Foster v. Gamble-Robinson Co., 29234-5.
| Decision Date | 07 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 29250-1.,No. 29234-5.,No. 29286-7.,29234-5.,29250-1.,29286-7. |
| Citation | 188 Minn. 552,247 N.W. 801 |
| Parties | FOSTER et al. v. GAMBLE-ROBINSON CO. et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; L. O. Rue, Judge.
Action by Louisa Foster and others against the Gamble-Robinson Company and others. Verdict in favor of the plaintiff Louisa Foster and verdict in favor of the plaintiff Fred Foster. From orders denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, the defendants appeal; and, from a judgment against him, the defendant Charles Gongell appeals.
Order denying judgment notwithstanding verdict as to Gamble-Robinson Company and George T. Serr reversed, and case remanded, with directions, and judgment appealed from affirmed.
Cobb, Hoke, Benson, Krause, & Faegre and Frank Janes, all of Minneapolis, and Orr, Stark, Kidder & Freeman, of St. Paul, for appellants.
B. W. Wilder, A. C. Johnston, and F. M. Miner, all of Minneapolis, for respondents.
Plaintiff Louisa Foster recovered a verdict against all of the defendants for damages on account of personal injuries received in a collision between the automobile in which she was riding and a truck belonging to the Gamble-Robinson Company. Her husband, Fred Foster, also recovered a verdict for expenses and loss of services due to the injury. Louisa will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff. All of the defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Their motions were denied, and they have appealed from the orders denying their blended motions. Judgment was entered as against Charles Gongell, and he has appealed from the judgment.
About 9 o'clock a. m. of February 27, 1931, the Gamble-Robinson Company truck, driven by George T. Serr, was traveling westward from Chaska on trunk highway No. 12. Four to six inches of snow had recently fallen, and the principal path in which vehicles had been traveling lay astride of the center line of the 20-foot pavement. On that morning the plaintiff was a passenger in the rear seat of an Essex touring car which was proceeding eastward along the same highway. The touring car was traveling not to exceed 20 to 25 miles per hour, and the truck about the same speed. Plaintiff says it was slushy and slippery that morning, and it is apparent from the record that both drivers were proceeding with caution on that account. When they arrived within about three ordinary blocks of each other, each swung away from the center to the right side of the pavement and each maintained that position until just before the accident. Gongell was driving the Essex, and apparently he swung too far to the right and at least his rear wheel went off the pavement. Gongell himself says that he does not know whether he drove outside of the pavement, because he could not tell where the edge of it was on account of the snow; that he at all times had control of his car until immediately before the accident, when it suddenly swung almost at right angles to the left and immediately in front of the approaching truck. The driver of the truck had slowed down to about 15 miles per hour, and swung sharply to the left in an endeavor to miss the Essex car, but caught it at the right rear end with the right-hand end of his front bumper, swinging it sharply around, and also swinging his truck to a position practically at right angles across the pavement. In this process the rear of the truck skidded in a circular swing for about 12 to 15 feet. The tracks of the Essex indicated that the rear end of the car had swung off the pavement and had got into a rut which was sometimes close to the edge of the pavement and sometimes as far as a foot away from it. Gongell succeeded in getting his car back onto the pavement when it again swung off to the right, this time going only a few feet before it swung hard to the left and in front of the truck.
The question presented here is whether there was any evidence of negligence on the part of Serr, the driver of the Gamble-Robinson truck, or whether as a matter of law he was free from fault. All parties are agreed that there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of Gongell to go to the jury and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial