Rosenau v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 29 October 1920
• Docket Number: No. 21852.,21852.
• Parties: ROSENAU v. PETERSON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

147 Minn. 95

179 N.W. 647

ROSENAU

v.PETERSON.

No. 21852.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 29, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Martin County; E. C. Dean, Judge.

Action by Wilhelmina Rosenau, administratrix, against Hans O. Peterson, with counterclaim by defendant. Counterclaim dismissed, and verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Order reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

Subdivision 2, § 22, c. 119, Laws 1917 (Gen. St. Supp. 1917, § 2552), providing that the driver of any vehicle, approaching or crossing a street or highway intersection, shall give the right of way to any other vehicle approaching from his right, construed and applied.

Ignorance of the rule created by the statute is not a valid excuse for a failure of its observance.

The rule of the statute is one of convenience, and was intended to standardize duties and obligations at intersecting highways and streets, but does not absolve one having the prior right from independent acts of negligence at such crossings.

On the facts stated in the opinion it is held that both parties are chargeable with negligence contributing to and causing a collision between their respective automobiles at a highway crossing and that neither can recover from the other.Haycraft & McCune, of Fairmont, for appellant.

Albert R. Allen and Leo J. Seifert, both of Fairmont, for respondent.

BROWN, C. J.

There was a collision at a highway intersection between an automobile owned by plaintiff and one owned and operated by defendant, and on the claim that defendant negligently caused the same plaintiff brought this action to recover for the damage thereby caused to his automobile. Defendant interposed a counterclaim for damages to his automobile, based on allegations that the collision was caused by the negligence of the driver of plaintiff's car. The trial court dismissed the counterclaim, but submitted plaintiff's cause of action to the jury. Plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant appealed from an order denying a new trial.

The assignments of error present several questions, only two of which require special attention, namely: (1) Whether the driver of plaintiff's car was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law; and (2) whether defendant was guilty of such negligence as will preclude his right of recovery on the counterclaim. Neither question requires extended discussion. The case is one, in our view of the evidence, in which the negligence of both parties is of such a character as to preclude a right of recovery by either.

[1][2] 1. The highways at the point in question intersect and cross at right angles. Plaintiff's automobile was being driven by his sister, and she was in sole control and possession thereof. She was driving west on the highway extending east and west. Defendant was driving his own automobile, and was proceeding south on the highway running north and south. The crossing is a dangerous one, of which both parties were fully informed. The view of the driver of plaintiff's car to the north as she approached the crossing was obstructed for a considerable distance by a grove of trees and brush immediately adjoining the highway line, and the same obstruction prevented a view of the road to the east as defendant came on from the north. That condition continued until plaintiff's car passed the line of the north and south road, and until defendant passed the line of the east and west road. Both automobiles reached the crossing at about the same time; the collision occurred in the center of the road. Defendant was approaching from the right of the driver of plaintiff's car, and under chapter 119, § 22, Laws 1917 (Gen. St. Supp. 1917, § 2552), had the right of way, a right plaintiff was bound to respect.

That the driver of plaintiff's car was guilty of negligence contributing to, if not the real cause of, the collision, seems...