Johnson v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 15 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | 20,296 - (100) |
| Citation | 163 N.W. 160,137 Minn. 198 |
| Parties | GUST JOHNSON v. JOHN A. JOHNSON |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court of Hennepin county to recover $5,000 for injuries sustained through collision with an automobile driven by defendant. The answer set up negligence on the part of plaintiff. The case was tried before Fish, J., who when plaintiff rested denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action, and a jury which returned a verdict for $2,000. From an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Motor vehicle -- duty when passing street car discharging passengers.
1. The driver of an automobile in passing a street car on the side opposite the car gates, which car has stopped at the regular place to receive and discharge passengers, is bound to anticipate the probable sudden appearance of persons around the rear end of the car, and must give signals of his approach and have his automobile under control, as precautionary measures to avoid injury to them.
Motor vehicle -- excessive speed -- questions of negligence for jury.
2. Evidence tending to show that defendant, without signal drove his automobile at a high rate of speed by and close to a standing street car, from which passengers were alighting striking and injuring plaintiff as he stepped from behind the car, held properly submitted to the jury upon the issue of defendant's negligence.
Motor vehicle -- Contributory negligence.
3. The verdict exonerating plaintiff from the charge of contributory negligence is sustained by the evidence.
Thomas C. Daggett, for appellant.
Larrabee, Davies & Olson, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries claimed to have been suffered by plaintiff by reason of the alleged negligence of defendant. Plaintiff had a verdict and defendant appealed from an order denying a new trial.
The assignments of error present the question whether the evidence is sufficient to justify a finding of negligence on the part of defendant and to exonerate plaintiff from the charge of contributory negligence. An examination of the record leads to an affirmative answer to the question.
The record presents evidence from which the jury might find the following facts: Plaintiff had alighted from a street car at the corner of Washington avenue and First street south in Minneapolis, a populous part of the city where there is much street car and other traffic, on the early morning of December 21, 1915, and as he passed around the rear end of the car was struck and injured by an automobile operated by defendant. There is no dispute as to the time, the place or manner of plaintiff's injury, though there is a controversy in the evidence upon other points. The street car made what is known as a "near side stop," and plaintiff passed around the rear end of the car intending to cross the street. He testified that he listened for an approaching car upon the adjoining parallel street car track, which he would have to cross to reach his intended destination, and that, as he stepped from the rear of the car to look in the direction from which a car or other vehicle might be approaching, he was struck by the automobile, which was running without signal upon the adjoining car track and close to the standing street car from which he had just alighted. The testimony of a policeman who saw the automobile coming down the street just prior to the accident was that it was running in the center of the street, partly upon the street car track, and at about 15...
To continue reading
Request your trial