Shearer v. Dewees
| Decision Date | 10 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | 22,669 |
| Citation | 186 N.W. 793,151 Minn. 380 |
| Parties | RUSSELL SHEARER v. E. B. DEWEES |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Jackson county to recover $3,000 for personal injuries. The case was tried before Dean, J who when plaintiff rested granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Use of street -- contributory negligence for the jury.
While plaintiff was driving along a street in the village of Jackson, he discovered that the end-gate of his wagon had fallen off and was lying in the middle of the street two or three hundred feet behind him. He ran back to the end-gate and, while picking it up, was struck by defendant's automobile. He had seen the automobile coming toward him along the center of the street, but paid no attention to it as the driver had ample room to avoid him by turning to the right side of the street. Held that whether he was guilty of contributory negligence was a question for the jury.
E. H. Nicholas, for appellant.
F. B. Faber and Haycraft & McCune, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries. At the close of plaintiff's evidence defendant moved for dismissal on the ground that no cause of action had been proven, and that it conclusively appeared that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The motion was granted and plaintiff appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
Plaintiff, a young man 28 years of age, resided on a farm with his father 3 or 4 miles from the village of Jackson. On the morning of October 11, 1919, he and his father drove to the city with a load of hogs. As they were driving west along the center of one of the streets of the city, they discovered that the end-gate of the wagon had fallen out and was lying in the center of the street some two or three hundred feet behind them. They stopped and plaintiff, who had been driving, gave the lines to his father and ran back along the center of the street to get the end-gate, and, as he was picking it up, he was struck by defendant's automobile which was going west along the center of the street.
The traveled portion of the street was amply wide for three automobiles abreast. About the time of the collision or slightly before it, another automobile going east passed on the south side of the street. There were no other vehicles or pedestrians in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial