Praught v. Great Northern Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 13 February 1920
• Docket Number: 21,484,21,485
• Citation: 175 N.W. 998,144 Minn. 309
• Parties: ANGUS P. PRAUGHT, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BERTHA D. PRAUGHT, DECEASED v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; ANGUS P. PRAUGHT, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ARMELLA PRAUGHT, DECEASED v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

175 N.W. 998

144 Minn. 309

ANGUS P. PRAUGHT, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BERTHA D. PRAUGHT, DECEASED v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY; ANGUS P. PRAUGHT, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ARMELLA PRAUGHT, DECEASED v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Nos. 21,484, 21,485

Supreme Court of Minnesota

February 13, 1920

Original Opinion Filed December 19, 1919

SYLLABUS

Negligence of driver -- reasonable care required of passenger.

1. While the negligence of the driver of a vehicle is not imputed to a passenger riding therein, still the passenger is required to exercise reasonable care for her own safety.

Contributory negligence question for the jury.

2. Evidence in this case held sufficient to justify the submission of the question of contributory negligence to the jury.

OPINION

On February 13, 1920, the following opinion was filed:

Petition on Rehearing

Per Curiam.

After a reargument of this cause and due consideration of the matter, a majority of the court are of the opinion that the issue of contributory negligence should be passed upon by another jury, and the order appealed from will therefore be reversed and a new trial granted. The members of the court agreeing to that conclusion are somewhat impressed with the idea that the inadvertent language of the trial court in its instruction to the jury as to the duty of decedents for their own protection in crossing the railroad track, created an adverse impression on the minds of the jury, resulting in the verdict affirming contributory negligence on their part. With a new trial and this feature of the charge omitted, no doubt a fair and impartial verdict upon the particular issue may be had, though the new trial will be had upon all the issues in the case.

Reversed.

CONCUR BY: DIBELL; HALLAM

DIBELL, J.

I concur in a reversal. I think it should be put upon a definite ground of error, and I would put it upon the ground that there was no evidence for the jury upon the question of contributory negligence.

HALLAM, J.

I concur in this.