Martin v. Tracy
| Decision Date | 23 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | 29,193 |
| Parties | GERALD T. MARTIN v. C. B. TRACY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for LeSueur county to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff and for damage to his automobile in a collision between his car and one owned by the defendant, alleged to have been parked on the highway after dark without a rear light. The case was tried before Enersen, J. of the ninth judicial district acting for the judge of the eighth judicial district. There was a verdict for $6,500 in favor of plaintiff. Upon defendant's motion in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding or a new trial, the court denied the motion for judgment but granted a new trial unless plaintiff should consent to a reduction of the verdict to $5,900, in which case the motion for a new trial was denied. Plaintiff consented to the reduction, and defendant appealed from the order so made. Affirmed.
Automobile -- vehicle parked on highway without rear lights -- liability for injury resulting therefrom.
1. An automobile driver who violates the uniform highway traffic act requiring a motor vehicle to be equipped with lighted rear lamps, and forbidding the parking of a car on the traveled portion of the highway if it is practicable to park elsewhere, is responsible for an injury proximately resulting therefrom unless his violation of the statute is excusable or justifiable.
Automobile -- vehicle parked on highway without rear lights -- excuse or justification.
2. The violation of such statutes may be excusable or justifiable if without fault on the part of the driver the auto is compelled to be there in such condition.
Automobile -- vehicle parked on highway without rear lights.
3. The evidence sustains a finding that the defendant's auto was parked on the highway without a rear light.
Automobile -- vehicle parked on highway without rear lights -- burden of proving justification.
4. The burden of proving excuse or justification is upon the auto driver; and the evidence does not require a finding that the defendant was justified or excused in having his car parked on the highway or in having it without a rear light.
Automobile -- vehicle parked on highway without rear lights -- contributory negligence.
5. The evidence does not require a finding that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in colliding with the parked car as he came from the rear.
Damages -- not excessive.
6. The verdict was not excessive.
Damages -- time lost from employment.
7. There was no error in permitting the jury to award damages for lost time although the plaintiff was not employed at the time of his injury.
L. W Prendergast and Sweet, Johnson & Sands, for appellant.
Donald O. Wright and Alfred W. Bowen, for respondent.
Action to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff in his person and in his property in a collision between his auto and the auto of the defendant. There was a verdict for $6,500, which was conditionally reduced to $5,900, and the reduction accepted by the plaintiff. The defendant appeals from the order denying his alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding or a new trial.
On November 28, 1930, about half past five or six in the evening, the plaintiff was driving his Ford Tudor automobile northerly of St. Peter on state highway No. 5. It was dark. He ran into the rear of the defendant's truck, which was parked at the side of the highway. The truck had come to a stop because it was out of gas. The defendant then parked it at the side of the highway as best he could and went to the rear, having in mind oncoming cars which might be endangered.
The plaintiff claims that there was no light on the rear of the defendant's truck and relies upon this as a basis of recovery. The defendant claims that he had a light, and, if not, that he was excusable in having his car parked without one; and he further claims that the plaintiff's contributory negligence prevents recovery.
1. The uniform highway traffic act, 1 Mason, 1927, § 2720-48(a), requires that every motor vehicle be equipped with lighted front and rear lights from a half hour after sunset to a half hour before sunrise.
Section 2720-24(a) forbids the parking or leaving standing of an auto upon the paved or main traveled portion of a highway when it is practicable to park or leave such auto off the paved or traveled portion of the highway; and that in no event shall the auto be left upon a highway unless a clear width of not less than 15 feet opposite the auto shall be left for free passage. By subd. (c) this section is made not to apply to the driver of an auto which is disabled while on the paved or traveled portion of the highway to such extent that it is impossible to avoid stopping and temporarily leaving the auto in such position.
Section 2720-54 requires a parked car to have during the same period a light on the car. A violation of the statutes noted gives to the one for whose protection it was enacted a cause of action if injury proximately results from its violation. The principle was discussed in an early case, Bott v. Pratt, 33 Minn. 323, 23 N.W. 237, 53 Am. R. 47, where there was involved an injury resulting from the leaving of a team unhitched in the street. It was applied to motor vehicle traffic, perhaps for the first time in this state, in Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460, 151 N.W. 275. The doctrine of these two cases is followed here and elsewhere. The cases are collected and the doctrine discussed in Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193, 206 N.W. 377, and in Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476, 239 N.W. 605. In Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479, 242 N.W. 8, there is a full discussion of § 2720-24(c) relative to the disabling of a motor vehicle so that it is impossible to avoid stopping upon an otherwise forbidden portion of a street.
2. The violation of the statutes cited may be excusable or justifiable, as, for instance, when an auto without fault of the driver skids to the wrong side of the street. Chase v. Tingdale Bros. 127 Minn. 401, 149 N.W. 654; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193, 206 N.W. 377; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476, 239 N.W. 605. In the case last cited and in Geisen v. Luce, 185 Minn. 479, 242 N.W. 8, the application of the rule is discussed. And see 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed. & Supp.) § 4162a, and cases cited.
3. The evidence sustains the finding of the jury that the defendant's auto was parked on the highway without a rear light at a time when the statute says there should be one. The plaintiff says that if there had been a light he would have seen it and that he did not see it. He is positive in his testimony. The defendant is not certain. The most he says is that his auto was serviced at Mankato, some ten miles south...
To continue reading
Request your trial