Robertson v. Spitler

• Decision Date: 17 November 1922
• Docket Number: No. 23026.,23026.
• Citation: 153 Minn. 395,190 N.W. 992
• Parties: ROBERTSON v. SPITLER et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

153 Minn. 395

190 N.W. 992

ROBERTSON

v.SPITLER et al.

No. 23026.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 17, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; W. E. Hale, Judge.

Action by L. T. Robertson against A. L. Spitler and others. Verdict for plaintiff and from an order denying their alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, the defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

In this, an action to recover for damages to the auto of the plaintiff in a collision at a street crossing with an auto of the defendants, the evidence sustains a finding that the defendants' driver was negligent and that the plaintiff was not negligent.

Though the plaintiff did not keep to the right of the street intersection, the evidence does not require a finding of a causal connection between such failure and the injury.

The evidence sustains a finding that the driver of the defendants was in the line of his employment. Snyder, Gale & Richards, of Minneapolis, for appellants.

A. A. Tenner, of Minneapolis, for respondent.

DIBELL, J.

Action to recover damages to the plaintiff's auto in a collision with an auto truck of the defendants. There was a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal from the order denying their alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding or a new trial.

[1] 1. Lyndale avenue in Minneapolis runs north and south. Groveland avenue runs east and west and intersects Lyndale at right angles, but the northerly side of Groveland on the east is a few feet northerly of its northerly side on the west, and there is a like situation on the southerly side. At this intersection Hennepin avenue crosses going in a northeasterly and southwesterly direction, thus making at the intersection of the three streets a crossing of many corners, and concededly a dangerous one.

On December 29, 1920, the plaintiff was driving southerly on Lyndale. When he came to Hennepin a part of Lyndale was roped off by the city traffic department and he was obliged to go south on Hennepin and then turn east, or to his left, and pass into Lyndale. The truck of the defendants was approaching on Hennepin from the southwest on a down grade. The truck of the defendants had the right of way. Laws 1917, c. 119, § 22 (Gen. St. Supp. 1917, § 2552); Armstrong v. Minneapolis, etc., Co. (Minn.) 191 N. W. 47;Soderberg v. Taney, (Minn.) 188 N. W. 993. This, however, did not necessarily make it negligence in one not having the right of way to attempt to take the crossing first. If it were so he must needs wait the passing of all cars approaching on his right. Drivers at crossings must give and take but with a sensible recognition of the law that gives the right of way to the one approaching from the right. The cases were recently reviewed in Soderberg v. Taney (Minn.) 188 N. W. 993, and do not call for renewed discussion. The street was slippery, the truck of the defendants was coming on a down grade, at a fairly good speed, it skidded, was going ‘zigzag,’ and the driver lost control of it. The plaintiff says it was 150 to 175 feet away when he started to cross. Under these circumstances, conceding that a finding that plaintiff was negligent would be well sustained by the evidence, the law does not require such conclusion from the evidence.

[2] ...