Hinkle v. Minneapolis, A. & C. R. Ry. Co., 24238.
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
| Writing for the Court | WILSON |
| Citation | 162 Minn. 112,202 N.W. 340 |
| Parties | HINKLE v. MINNEAPOLIS, A. & C. R. RY. CO. |
| Docket Number | No. 24238.,24238. |
| Decision Date | 20 February 1925 |
HINKLE
v.
MINNEAPOLIS, A. & C. R. RY. CO.
No. 24238.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Feb. 20, 1925.
Appeal from District Court, Anoka County; Arthur E. Giddings, Judge.
Action by Chester K. Hinkle against the Minneapolis, Anoka & Cayuna Range Railway Company. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Dibell, J., dissenting.
Willful and wanton negligence by plaintiff is a defense to an action for plaintiff's injuries caused by the willful and wanton negligence of the defendant.
Thos. D. Schall and John M. Rees, both of Minneapolis, for appellant.
John P. Coleman and Will A. Blanchard, both of Anoka, for respondent.
WILSON, C. J.
The record presents the abstract question, namely: Is willful and wanton negligence by a plaintiff a defense to an action for plaintiff's injuries caused by the willful and wanton negligence of the defendant?
The bill of exceptions does not contain the evidence. We must assume that the facts warranted the charge given. This case, however, must not be construed as an authority for the application of the doctrine, we now announce, to the facts as they in part appear in the record and briefs.
Contributory negligence bars an action based upon ordinary negligence. Contributory negligence has no application where defendant is guilty of willful and wanton negligence. Such negligence incurs liability irrespective of contributory negligence.
Willful and wanton negligence is reckless disregard of the safety of the person or property of another by failing, after discovering the peril, to exercise ordinary care to prevent the impending injury. Anderson v. Mpls. St. Paul & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co., 103 Minn. 224, 114 N. W. 1123,14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 886;Anderson v. Mpls., St. Ry. Co., 150 Minn. 509, 185 N. W. 661;Ashe v. Mpls., St. Paul & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 138 Minn. 176, 164 N. W. 803; 8 Minn. Law Review, 329; Pickering v. N. P. Ry. Co., 132 Minn. 205, 156 N. W. 3;Gill v. Mpls., St. Paul. R. & D. E. T. Co., 129 Minn. 142, 151 N. W. 896;Havel v. M. & St. L. Ry. Co., 120 Minn. 195, 139 N. W. 137. One is liable for negligence only when such negligence is the proximate cause of the injury. When a defendant is charged with ordinary negligence, contributory negligence is a good defense. Why? The answer is founded in proximate cause. In the absence of the doctrine of comparative negligence they are equally to blame. When two persons are equally at fault in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanson v. Hall, 31405.
...129 Minn. 271, 152 N.W. 645, L.R.A.1915E, 812;Mueller v. Dewey, 159 Minn. 173, 198 N.W. 428;Hinkle v. Minneapolis A. & C. R. R. Co., 162 Minn. 112, 202 N.W. 340, 41 A.L.R. 1377;Restatement, Torts, § 481; Harper on Torts, § 151. Only if plaintiff's fault is of a culpability equal to that of ......
-
Hanson v. Hall, 31405.
...129 Minn. 271, 152 N.W. 645, L.R.A.1915E, 812; Mueller v. Dewey, 159 Minn. 173, 198 N.W. 428; Hinkle v. Minneapolis A. & C. R. R. Co., 162 Minn. 112, 202 N.W. 340, 41 A.L.R. 1377; Restatement, Torts, § 481; Harper on Torts, § 151. Only if plaintiff's fault is of a culpability equal to that ......
-
Wright v. Carey, 2332.
...to each of plaintiff's heedless and reckless disregard for her own safety. Hinkle v. Minneapolis A. & C. R. Co., 162 Page 754 Minn. 112, 202 N.W. 340, 41 A.L.R. 1377, 1379, note; 2 Restatement of Torts 1262; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Zantzinger, 92 Tex. 365, 371, 48 S.W. 563, 44 L.R.A......
-
Bryant v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 34152.
...to an action based upon wilful or wanton negligence. Turenne v. Smith, 215 Minn. 64, 9 N.W.2d 409Hinkle v. Minneapolis, A. & C.R.R. Co., 162 Minn. 112, 202 N.W. 340, 41 A.L.R. 1377Fonda v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 71 Minn. 438, 74 N.W. 166,70 Am.St.Rep. 341. Wilful and wanton negligence canno......