Freude v. Berzins, C9-85-713
| Decision Date | 24 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C9-85-713,C9-85-713 |
| Citation | 379 N.W.2d 174 |
| Parties | Georgianne FREUDE, Appellant, v. Cathy BERZINS, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The evidence in the record was sufficient to support the trial court's determinations that respondent had a green arrow when she entered the intersection to make a left turn, that respondent had the right of way, and that appellant's driver's negligence in failing to yield to respondents' automobile caused the collision. These findings support the judgment in favor of respondents.
Georgianne Freude, pro se.
Brandon LaSalle, Eden Prairie, for respondents.
Considered and decided by PARKER, P.J., and FORSBERG and NIERENGARTEN, JJ., without oral argument.
Georgianne Freude brought an action to recover, for damages to her automobile arising out of a collision, in conciliation court. She lost and removed the case for a trial de novo in District Court. There, the trial court found that the driver of her car had been negligent, that the defendant driver was not negligent, and it awarded damages on defendants' counterclaim. Freude appeals from the judgment. We affirm.
This lawsuit arises out of an automobile accident occurring at the intersection of Olson Memorial Highway and Seventh Street in Minneapolis. Appellant Freude was riding as a passenger in her automobile; Jonathan Mudge, her son, drove the car under her direction and control. Appellant's car was proceeding southerly on Seventh Street, approaching Olson Memorial Highway. Respondents Cathy and Raimonds Berzins, co-owners of their automobile, were proceeding in a northerly direction on Seventh Street, approaching Olson Memorial Highway. Seventh Street, at that point, has three lanes of traffic; the Berzins were traveling in the center lane. Cathy Berzins attempted to make a left turn from the center lane, beginning her turn at a time when the traffic signal for the northerly bound Seventh Street traffic displayed a green arrow permitting left turns. Appellant's automobile struck the right rear portion of respondents' automobile, causing damages to it in the amount of $1,057.
The trial court found that appellant's driver failed to yield to respondent as she was completing her turn and caused the accident, that respondent driver was not negligent, and ordered damages for respondents in the amount of $250, plus costs and disbursements.
Does the evidence sustain the findings of fact and do the findings of fact sustain the conclusions of law?
Appellant did not make a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial but appealed directly from the judgment. In these circumstances, the scope of review
is limited to whether the evidence sustains the findings of fact and whether the findings of fact sustain the conclusions of law under "any applicable rule of law."
Johnsrud v. Tri-State Sales, Inc., 353 N.W.2d 255, 257 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (quoting Kilty v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 287 Minn. 403, 404, 178 N.W.2d 734, 736 (1970)).
Rule 52.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides, as to findings by the trial court Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.
Appellant apparently contests the trial court's finding that respondent driver Cathy Berzins attempted her left turn when the traffic signal displayed a left-turn arrow. Both respondents testified that the green arrow was displayed when they entered the intersection. Jonathan Mudge testified that the traffic light was green for him when he approached the intersection.
A traffic engineer testified that the green left-turn arrow and a green ball for the northerly bound Seventh Street traffic was displayed for 15.1 seconds, allowing such traffic on Seventh Street to proceed forward or left; the yellow left-turn arrow and green ball are then displayed for 3.6 seconds; during all this time the light is red for the southerly bound Seventh Street traffic. After the sequence, a green ball shows for both the northerly and southerly bound traffic for 39.2 seconds.
The trial court was entitled to believe respondents' testimony that the green arrow was displayed when respondent driver entered the intersection.
Appellant next contends that respondents were negligent as a matter of law because they turned left from the center lane. Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.19, subd. 1(2) (1982), provides in relevant part:
Approach for a left turn on other than one-way roadways shall be made in that portion of the right half of the roadway nearest the center line thereof, and after entering the intersection the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection to the right of the center lane of the roadway being entered.
Because the respondents did not turn from the proper lane, and there were apparently no markings on the highway indicating they could turn from the center lane, they violated Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.19, subd. 1(2).
The effect of violating a traffic law statute is as follows:
In all civil actions, a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, by either or any of the parties to such action or actions shall not be negligence per se but shall be prima facie evidence of negligence only.
Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.96 (1982). A violator of this statute has the burden of showing that there was justification for the violation or that it would not endanger another vehicle. Once the burden is met, the prima facie case ceases to have validity and is no longer present in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. Galvez
...to show excuse or justification for the violation. Borris v. Cox, 245 Minn. 515, 518, 73 N.W.2d 372, 374 (1955); Freude v. Berzins, 379 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Minn.App.1985). If the violator presents evidence which tends to show excuse or justification, the question of whether the violation const......