Westlund v. Iverson

• Decision Date: 22 December 1922
• Docket Number: No. 23018.,23018.
• Citation: 154 Minn. 52,191 N.W. 253
• Parties: WESTLUND v. IVERSON et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

154 Minn. 52

191 N.W. 253

WESTLUND

v.IVERSON et al.

No. 23018.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 22, 1922.

Appeal from District Court, Chippewa County; Richard T. Daly, Judge.

Action by Eric Westlund against Anna Iverson and another. Verdict for defendants, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Plaintiff while walking on a side footpath was injured by a wheel accidentally detached from defendant's car as it proceeded along the road.

The traffic statute does not require a motorist to sound his horn to warn pedestrians on sidewalks or paths, who are not approaching the part of the road traveled by vehicles.

The evidence in this case is not sufficient to show substantial violation by defendant of the statute requiring motorists to reduce speed in rounding curves.

The statute requiring motorists, in rounding curves, to keep as far to the right as possible was not intended to protect pedestrians on left-hand sidewalks by throwing the hazard from unusual casualties to the right.

Speed regulations should be rigidly enforced to the end that highway accidents may be avoided.

Speed regulations should be reasonably construed.

Lundeen & Lundeen, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

J. O. Haugland and Oluf Gjerset, both of Montevideo, for respondents.

HALLAM, J.

[1] 1. On August 27, 1921, defendant Lloyd Iverson was driving a Ford sedan belonging to defendant Anna Iverson, his mother, on a public highway. Plaintiff was traveling on foot on the same highway. The road was the Yellowstone Trail in the outskirts of Montevideo, and was a wife, well-graded and much-traveled road. There was no sidewalk, but there was a well-traveled footpath alongside of the road. This path was on the very edge of the roadway, but so distinct from it that ‘people on the footpath go back and forth there unconcerned about the cars going in the roadway.’ Plaintiff was walking on this footpath and was on Lloyd's left. As Lloyd was approaching plaintiff, the left rear wheel of his Ford came off, without warning, and without any fault of defendants, rolled over on to the footpath and against plaintiff's leg, causing a fracture and other injury. Plaintiff sued for damages. The trial court directed a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appeals from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

After careful examination of the record, we are of the opinion that the trial court was right.

[2] 2. Plaintiff complains that Lloyd did not sound his horn.

The statute (chapter 472, Laws 1921, § 4) provides:

‘Upon approaching a pedestrian, who is upon the traveled part of any highway * * * every person operating a motor vehicle shall slow down and give a timely signal with his bell, horn, or other device for signaling.’

The ‘traveled part’ of the highway means the part traveled by vehicles. The statute does not require a motorist to sound his horn to warn pedestrians upon sidewalks or footpaths who are not approaching the part of the road traveled by vehicles. Plaintiff was not upon the part of the highway traveled by vehicles, and the statute does not apply.

3. The same statute (section 6) provides that--

‘An operator in rounding curves shall reduce speed and shall keep his vehicle as far to the right on the highway as reasonably possible.’

Lloyd testified that at this point the road just begins to curve, and, in answer to cross-examination, said he was ‘coming around the curve.’ He was not asked as to the nature of the curve. No other witnesses mention the curve at all. The evidence is so vague that it is doubtful if this statute has any application. We cannot know whether he was in any proper sense rounding a curve.

[3] Lloyd's evidence is that he was going 12 or 15 miles an hour. There is no evidence that he was going faster. Some witnesses testified that he went from 50 to 125 feet after the wheel came off. He testified that he ran with the power on. There is no evidence to the contrary. If this be true the distance traveled proves little as to speed, for it shows nothing as to the momentum of the car. Lloyd testified that he ‘kept up’ his rate of speed until the...