Janssen v. Neal, 46401

• Decision Date: 08 July 1977
• Docket Number: No. 46401,46401
• Citation: 256 N.W.2d 292
• Parties: Harvey A. JANSSEN, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Gary Lee Janssen, Deceased, and Harvey A. Janssen, Individually, Appellant, v. Clarence E. NEAL, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 292

256 N.W.2d 292

Harvey A. JANSSEN, as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Gary Lee Janssen, Deceased, and Harvey A Janssen, Individually, Appellant, v. Clarence E. NEAL, Respondent.

No. 46401.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 8, 1977.

Syllabus by the Court

Under the facts in this case the trial court erred in not directing the jury that defendant was negligent as a matter of law for violating Minn.St.1971, §§ 169.48, 169.50, subd. 1, which required that a vehicle be equipped with at least one red taillight visible from 500 feet if driven one-half hour after sunset.

Prindle, Maland & Stennes and William D. Prindle, Montevideo, for appellant.

Winter, Lundquist, Sherwood, Athens & Pedersen and Bruce E. Sherwood, Wheaton, for respondent.

Heard before KELLY, TODD and YETKA, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.

YETKA, Justice.

This is the second appeal to this court involving a wrongful death action to recover damages for the death of Gary Janssen, a minor, who died when the motorcycle he was driving collided with a pickup truck driven by defendant, Clarence Neal. The action was first tried to a jury in the District Court, Chippewa County. The jury assessed damages for plaintiff at $25,000, but found decedent and defendant each 50-percent causally negligent. Plaintiff subsequently appealed to this court from a judgment entered for defendant. In Janssen v. Neal, 302 Minn. 177, 223 N.W.2d 804 (1974), this court reversed and remanded for a new trial solely on the issue of negligence because of erroneous instructions to the jury. On remand a second jury found that neither decedent nor defendant was negligent. Plaintiff moved for a judgment n. o. v. or for a new trial. This appeal follows the denial of these motions by the trial court and entry of judgment for defendant. Reversed and remanded.

This appeal presents three issues:

(1) Whether under the facts of this case appellant established as a matter of law that defendant was negligent because of an unexcused violation of Minn.St.1971, §§ 169.48, 169.50, subd. 1, which required that a vehicle be equipped with at least one red taillight visible from 500 feet if driven one-half hour after sunset.

(2) Whether under the facts of this case the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the basic speed statute with respect to decedent.

(3) Whether under the facts of this case the verdict by the jury finding neither decedent nor defendant negligent is perverse.

The collision giving rise to this action occurred on July 31, 1971, at approximately 9:30 p. m. on a straight and level section of a two-lane blacktop highway. The weather was clear, the road dry. The light condition was dusk, bordering on darkness. Sunset occurred 40 minutes before the accident. Defendant was driving a blue 1949 one-ton Chevrolet pickup truck loaded with grain behind a self-propelled combine. The pickup was equipped with a single 3-inch by 21/2-inch red taillight attached to the left rear of the truck frame, and a red reflectorized strip across the tailgate. The taillight was powered by a 3 candle power bulb. Both the pickup and the combine were traveling about 15 m. p. h.

Decedent was driving a motorcycle with a single headlight and was traveling in the same direction as the pickup. The motorcycle collided with the left rear of the pickup box, leaving 10 feet of skid marks. The collision did not appear at first to have caused any severe injury or severe property damage. At the scene of the accident, the only apparent injury to decedent was that he was unconscious and bleeding from his nose. He subsequently died from a basal skull fracture. Damage to decedent's motorcycle consisted of a broken rear wheel, damaged headlight, fender, and speedometer, and bent handlebars. The damage to defendant's truck consisted of a bent license plate, a bent angle iron on the corner of the truck box, and a bent fender.

At trial plaintiff argued that the cause of the accident was the failure of defendant to maintain a proper light on his pickup. Specifically, plaintiff argued the accident occurred because an improperly lighted pickup was following a brightly lighted combine and that decedent could see the silhouette of the combine but not the pickup.

1. Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in failing to direct a finding of negligence against respondent on the basis of violation of Minn.St.1971, § 169.50, subd. 1. That statute provided:

"Every motor vehicle and every vehicle which is being drawn at the end of a train of vehicles shall be equipped with at least one tail lamp, exhibiting a red light plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear. And further, every such above-mentioned vehicle, other than a truck-tractor, registered in this state and manufactured or assembled after January 1, 1960, shall be equipped with at least two tail lamps mounted on the rear, on the same level and as widely spaced laterally as practicable, which, when lighted as herein required, shall comply with the provisions of this section."

Violation of the statute by defendant would constitute prima facie evidence of negligence and not negligence per se. ¹...