Olson v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 20 June 1947 |
| Docket Number | 34444. |
| Citation | 28 N.W.2d 66,224 Minn. 216 |
| Parties | OLSON v. ANDERSON. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A motorist approaching an intersection against a stop sign is charged with the duty of stopping at a point where he may observe approaching traffic on the protected highway and must yield the right of way to vehicles approaching thereon within the zone where they constitute an immediate hazard. Minn.St.1945 and M.S.A. s 169.20, subd. 3.
2. A motorist upon a highway which he knows to be protected by a stop sign may assume, until he sees otherwise, that drivers approaching such an intersection against the sign will heed it and not only stop, but look for and yield the right of way to vehicles which are approaching so closely on the through highway as to constitute an immediate hazard. In the case at bar, plaintiff's driver, knowing of the stop sign, might reasonably assume that an approaching car on the road against which the stop sign was a warning would stop, observe the traffic, and yield the right of way to plaintiff's car which was within the zone of immediate hazard. He might so assume notwithstanding the view between the road on which he was traveling and that upon which defendant's car was approaching was obstructed by a dense grove.
Appeal from District Court, Yellow Medicine County; Harold Baker (Renville), Judge.
A. R. English, of Tracy, for appellant.
Fosnes & Severson, of Montevideo, for respondent.
This case comes here on appeal from an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Recovery was sought for personal injuries and damage to plaintiff's automobile resulting from a collision with defendant's car, which occurred at the intersection of a county road in Yellow Medicine county with a town road approximately 10 miles south and 2 miles west of the town of Clarkfield. Defendant counterclaimed for damage to his car. The county road runs north and south at the point of the intersection and the town road east and west. There is a stop sign against the town road at the intersection here involved. The view between the county road just north of the intersection and the town road just east of it is obstructed by a dense grove which extends some hundreds of feet from the corner of the intersection in both directions, but farthest to the north. The collision occurred about 8 a.m. of October 6, 1945. Plaintiff was riding in the back seat of his Ford coach, which was being driven by his son Milford southward toward the intersection on the county road. They were going to the farm of another son, who expected to fill a silo on that day.
Defendant approached the intersection from the east. He was aware of the stop sign at the intersection, but admits that he did not stop, although he claims to have reduced speed and changed gears between the stop sign and the traveled part of the county road. At a point about 185 feet east of the intersection, he was traveling from 30 to 35 miles an hour in the opinion of an eyewitness. The dense grove at the northeast corner of the intersection obstructed the view of each driver toward the other. The collision occurred in the northwest quarter of the intersection, plaintiff's car striking defendant's at about the middle. Plaintiff's driver testified that immediately upon seeing defendant project his car into the road in front of him he applied his brakes and sought to avoid the collision. Defendant asserted that he did not see plaintiff's car until it was within 10 feet of him. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from this statement is that defendant did not look for approaching cars which constituted an immediate hazard.
At the close of the trial the court directed a verdict for plaintiff upon the theory that as a matter of law defendant was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, and that there was no evidence sufficient to go to the jury that plaintiff's driver was...
To continue reading
Request your trial