Mechler v. McMahon
| Decision Date | 02 May 1930 |
| Docket Number | 27,637 |
| Citation | 230 N.W. 776,180 Minn. 252 |
| Parties | JOHN J. MECHLER v. THOMAS J. McMAHON AND ANOTHER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover for personal injuries to plaintiff and damage to his auto suffered in a collision with a truck owned by defendant McMahon and parked without lights on the highway. Defendants appealed from an order, Richard D. O'Brien, J. granting plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the ground of errors of law after a verdict had been directed in their favor. Affirmed.
Contributory negligence as ground for directing verdict.
1. In an action to recover for damages sustained by plaintiff in a collision of his automobile with a truck parked on a paved highway and without a rear red light after dark, all contrary to law, to justify an instructed verdict for defendants on the ground of plaintiff's contributory negligence, such negligence must appear as a matter of law. In determining that question the credibility of the evidence for plaintiff and every fact and inference which may be fairly drawn in favor of plaintiff therefrom must be accepted.
When question is one of law.
2. The test as to whether such a question of law is presented must be applied with caution lest the courts usurp the functions of the jury. There should however be no hesitancy in determining that the question is one of law when the situation warrants it.
Question for jury.
3. Evidence examined and held that defendants' negligence was proved and that the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was one of fact for the jury and not one of law for the court.
Motor Vehicles, 42 C.J. § 1108 p. 1263 n. 66.
Negligence 45 C.J. § 906 p. 1334 n. 73.
See note in 24 A.L.R. 510; 2 R.C.L. 1192; R.C.L. Perm. Supp. 656.
Denegre, McDermott, Stearns, Stone & Mackey, for appellants.
Bundlie & Kelley, for respondent.
Defendants appeal from an order granting plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
Plaintiff sued to recover for personal injuries and property damages sustained in a collision of his automobile with a truck owned by defendant McMahon and driven by his agent, Bogoty, with whom there was also a helper. Separate answers were filed by defendants, each of which in addition to a general denial alleged that if plaintiff suffered any damages they were caused solely by his own carelessness and negligence and without fault or negligence on the part of defendants. McMahon counterclaimed and asked for $500 because of damages to his truck.
At the close of plaintiff's case defendants' motion for a dismissal was denied, and at the close of all the evidence defendants' motion for a directed verdict was granted on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Prior thereto defendant McMahon's counterclaim was dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial was granted exclusively upon errors of law occurring at the trial.
1. Whether the court's order directing a verdict in favor of defendants was proper presents a question of law. Defendants' motion for a directed verdict admits for the purpose thereof the credibility of the evidence for the plaintiff and every fact and inference which may be fairly drawn therefrom in favor of plaintiff. In other words, it follows that the evidence most favorable to plaintiff must be accepted. Stauff v. Bingenheimer, 94 Minn. 309, 102 N.W. 694; Lesch v. G.N. Ry. Co. 97 Minn. 503, 106 N.W. 955, 7 L.R.A.(N.S.) 93; Knudson v. G.N. Ry. Co. 114 Minn. 244, 130 N.W. 994; Arnold v. Dauchy, 115 Minn. 28, 131 N.W. 625; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed.) § 9764.
2. The test as to whether a question of law or fact is presented must be applied with caution lest the courts usurp the functions of the jury. There should however be no hesitancy, where a proper situation arises, in determining that the question is one of law. It is only in the clearest of cases when the facts are undisputed and it is plain that all reasonable men can draw but one conclusion, that the question of contributory negligence becomes one of law. Lewis v. C. St. P.M. & O. Ry. Co. 111 Minn. 509, 127 N.W. 180; Knudson v. G.N. Ry. Co. 114 Minn. 244, 130 N.W. 994; Arnold v. Dauchy, 115 Minn. 28, 131 N.W. 625; Schulz v. Duel, 128 Minn. 213, 150 N.W. 786; Fitzgerald v. Armour & Co. 129 Minn. 81, 151 N.W. 539; Aubin v. Duluth St. Ry. Co. 169 Minn. 342, 211 N.W. 580; Eichhorn v. Lundin, 172 Minn. 591, 216 N.W. 537.
3. Applied to the instant case, does the evidence thus taken most favorably for plaintiff establish as a matter of law that he was guilty of contributory negligence? Thus considering the problem, we briefly state the evidence.
Defendant McMahon's truck was proceeding northerly on paved highway No. 1 approaching Rosemount. The truck was operated by defendant Bogoty and another employe of McMahon. It was loaded with 75 boxes of apples, the rear end of the truck being covered with a khaki-colored tarpaulin. The load extended to a height that prevented a view to the rear from the cab of the truck. The front lights of the truck went out as did also the red light in the rear thereof. The truck was stopped. Although there was testimony to the effect that the truck was parked partly on the shoulder and partly on the pavement, this was disputed by plaintiff's evidence, which must here be taken as true. It was that the truck was parked entirely on the pavement with the right wheels two feet from the edge thereof and the front wheels cramped to the left so that the left front wheel was over the center dividing line of the pavement. It had been thus parked for about five minutes. After the accident the truck was in the ditch on the left (west) side of the highway. The accident occurred on November 9, 1928, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial