Teas v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., s. 36492
| Decision Date | 29 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | 36493,Nos. 36492,s. 36492 |
| Citation | 70 N.W.2d 358,244 Minn. 427 |
| Parties | Earle J. TEAS, Respondent, v. MINNEAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant. LaVerne WALKER, Respondent, v. MINNEAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant, Earle J. Teas, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where the trial court grants plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict against a defendant and states that defendant may have an exception to the court's order, the propriety of such order may be raised on appeal from a judgment without further objection.
2. Where a streetcar collides with the rear of an automobile preceding it while such automobile is attempting to enter a driveway between two intersections, the question of negligence of the operator of the streetcar as well as that of the driver of the automobile is for the jury under the facts in this case.
Reversed and new trial granted.
Cronan, Barto, Roseen, Welsh & Castor and David K. Wendel, Minneapolis, for appellant.
King & MacGregor, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Cronan, Barto, Roseen, Welsh & Castor and David K. Wendel, Minneapolis, for appellant.
King & MacGregor, Minneapolis, for respondent Teas.
Hvass, Weisman, Peterson, King & Schwappach, Minneapolis, for respondent Walker.
This case arises out of a collision between a streetcar owned and operated by Minneapolis Street Railway Company, referred to hereinafter as the streetcar company, and an automobile owned and driven by Earle J. Teas on November 24, 1951, at about 12:45 p.m. The collision occurred on Fourth street southeast, in the city of Minneapolis, which runs east and west, between Eighteenth avenue southeast and Nineteenth avenue southeast, both of which run north and south and intersect Fourth street southeast at right angles. Nineteenth avenue lies to the east of Eighteenth avenue. The day was clear, and the pavement was dry. Fourth street is 40 feet wide from curb to curb. There are two sets of streetcar tracks near the center of the street, the southerly pair being used by eastbound cars and the northerly pair by westbound cars. South of the southernmost curb is a six-foot boulevard and south of that a six-foot sidewalk. The curb is about 12 or 13 feet from the most southerly track.
The University of Minnesota football stadium is located about two blocks south and east of the place of the accident. On the Saturday involved, a football game was to be played in the stadium. Immediately prior to the accident, Earle Teas, driving his car and accompanied by his wife, entered Fourth street some blocks to the west of the scene of the accident. As he approached Eighteenth avenue he was followed by the streetcar involved at a distance of from five to ten feet. Because of the congestion of traffic it was necessary for vehicles to travel close together. Both automobile and streetcar were proceeding slowly. The streetcar stopped before crossing Eighteenth avenue to permit a passenger to disembark and then proceeded again easterly. It then followed the Teas car at a distance of about 20 to 25 feet for about three-quarters of the distance through the block. Both were proceeding at a speed of from 10 to 15 miles per hour.
On days when there are football games in the stadium many of the residents living near furnish prking facilities in their driveways and yards for automobiles. They frequently stand on or near their yards and on the boulevards and solicit such business by waving their arms beckoning to the automobiles to drive into their yards. The residence in which plaintiff La Verne Walker lives is the next to the Last house from Nineteenth avenue in the block between Eighteenth and Nineteenth. There is a driveway going across through the boulevard at the entrance to his house, and about four or five feet farther east is another driveway serving the last house in the block, leaving a small grass boulevard about four or five feet wide between the two driveways. On the day involved, Walker was standing on the boulevard waving his arms beckoning automobiles to enter his driveway and park therein and the witness Fuller was standing nearby directing buses into the other driveway.
As Teas approached these driveways he was looking for a place to park. The testimony of the witnesses differs as to what then transpired. Teas and his wife testified that, as they approached the Walker driveway, they slowed up and came to a stop, with their car turned toward the driveway; that they inquired of Walker what the charge was for parking; and that, while they stood still or after they had moved a few inches, they were hit in the rear by the streetcar. Teas said that, after talking to Walker, he put the car in gear and then for the first time put his turning signal lights on. His testimony in that regard is as follows:
Teas did not see or hear the streetcar before the impact. He explained his failure to see the streetcar in his rear view mirror as follows:
'
'
The motorman on the streetcar, on the other hand, testified that, as they were proceeding easterly at about 20 to 25 feet apart, he observed the Teas car slow down and that he did likewise. He said that the automobile never came to a stop but turned in a southeasterly direction. He saw no turning signal or brake light on the car. He required 20 to 22 feet in which to stop, and, when the automobile turned to go into the driveway, he failed by one foot to bring his streetcar to a stop.
When the streetcar collided with the automobile it pushed it in a southeasterly direction over the curb, where it struck Walker. It then bounced back against the streetcar.
An action was brought by Walker against the streetcar company and Teas for personal injuries. Teas sued the streetcar company for his personal injuries and damage to his automobile. The cases were consolidated for trial. At the close of the testimony the trial court granted the motions of Walker and Teas for directed verdicts against the streetcar company on the question of negligence. The jury found in favor of Teas and returned verdicts in favor of both Walker and Teas against the streetcar company. The streetcar company appeals from the judgments entered pursuant thereto. There has been no motion for a new trial. The only question for our determination is whether the court erred in directing a verdict against the streetcar company.
1. Respondents contend that appellant did not object to the court's order directing a verdict and, having made no motion for a new trial, may not now raise the question here. We do not agree with the contention that appellant took no exception to the court's action. The record shows that the matter was discussed by the court and counsel in chambers. The court then said:
Thereafter further motions were made, and the court then said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Sorge
...so acknowledged.2 § 169.96.3 Cf. Tschida v. Dorle, 235 Minn. 461, 51 N.W.2d 561.4 See, § 169.19, subds. 5, 7. In Teas v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 244 Minn. 427, 70 N.W.2d 358, and Martini v. Johnson, 204 Minn. 556, 284 N.W. 433, cited by appellant, there were fact questions as to whether th......
-
Lee v. Smith, 37314
...might draw different inferences or conclusions from the facts, the matter in issue must be submitted to the jury. Teas v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 244 Minn. 427, 70 N.W.2d 358. Certainly this case is not a case in which the facts are undisputed nor is it plain that reasonable men could draw......
-
Burk v. Thorson, Inc.
...concrete situations. Hughes v. American Jawa, Ltd., 529 F.2d 21, 23 (8th Cir.1976); see also, Teas v. Minneapolis Street Ry. Co., 244 Minn. 427, 434, 70 N.W.2d 358, 363 (Minn. 1955) (negligence to be determined as a question of law "only in the clearest of cases"); Zimprich v. Stratford Hom......
-
Martinco v. Hastings
...Plaintiff contends here also that Hastings' negligence should not have been submitted to the jury. As was said in Teas v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 244 Minn. 427, 70 N.W.2d 358, it is only in the clearest of cases that the question of negligence becomes one of law. See, Kolatz v. Kelly, 244 ......