Home/Supreme Court of Minnesota/Anderson v. Eikeland

Anderson v. Eikeland

123 N.W.2d 316, 266 Minn. 61, 1963 Minn. LEXIS 709
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJuly 3, 1963
Docket38,741
StatusPublished

This text of 123 N.W.2d 316 (Anderson v. Eikeland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anderson v. Eikeland, 123 N.W.2d 316, 266 Minn. 61, 1963 Minn. LEXIS 709 (Mich. 1963).

Opinion

Rogosheske, Justice.

Appeal from an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for a new trial. The questions presented are concerned principally with the court’s instructions covering statutory right-of-way rules as applied to a unique intersection.

The action arises out of a collision between a 1955 Ford automobile owned and operated by defendant and a motorcycle owned and operated by plaintiff William Anderson, the 17-year-old student son of plaintiff William F. Anderson who was seriously injured in the collision. The collision occurred in West St. Paul on Sunday, July 31, 1960, at approximately 6:30 p. m. under admittedly perfect driving conditions, at the place where Dodd Road, a straight highway running approximately northeast-southwest, is intersected by Ohio Street and' where Hurley Street joins and terminates to form what might be described as a unique intersection. A reduced photocopy of a scale diagram, which was introduced as plaintiffs’ exhibit A, is reprinted and should aid in visualizing the scene. As indicated on the diagram, Ohio Street intersects Dodd Road on the southeast at a 90-degree angle. At a point a short distance northeast, Ohio Street extends due north of Dodd Road, intersecting at approximately a 45-degree angle. The evidence, including the diagram and photographs, provides the basis upon which the court concluded that this created a jog in Ohio Street as it crosses Dodd Road. As Dodd Road is a through street, there are stop signs on what might be described as Ohio Street southeast and Ohio Street north, as well as Hurley Street, regulating traffic entering Dodd Road. For one proceeding southwesterly on Dodd Road, there is a slight upward grade; and for one proceeding northwesterly on Ohio Street southeast, low overhanging branches of trees may, to some extent, interfere with his view to the right down Dodd Road.

Defendant, a 22-year-old schoolteacher, was driving his automobile on Ohio Street southeast in a northwesterly direction, intending to cross Dodd Road and to continue on Ohio Street north to reach his home *64 which was located a short distance from the scene. Plaintiff William Anderson was driving his motorcycle in a southwesterly direction on Dodd Road, intending to pass through the area where Ohio Street intersects this through highway. He had just left the home of his parents at 860 Dodd Road located on the easterly side of the highway approximately 700 feet northeast of the scene. While there was a question of fact concerning the exact point of impact, it is undisputed that the front of the motorcycle struck the right front door of defendant’s automobile at some point on the roadway north of the centerline of Dodd Road and west of the projected centerline of Ohio Street north. Defendant’s vehicle came to rest near the northwest corner of Ohio Street north, facing northeast. The motorcycle came to rest adjacent to the front right side of defendant’s vehicle. Plaintiff driver was thrown from his motorcycle and immediately after the collision was lying on the boulevard northwest of defendant’s car near the hydrant shown on the diagram. He was rendered unconscious and suffered injuries to his person and property. This joint action for damages resulting from the injuries and for past and prospective medical expenses followed. Defendant, who suffered no personal injuries, denied liability and counterclaimed for damages to his automobile.

*63

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chapman v. Dorsey
49 N.W.2d 4 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1951)
Knight Ex Rel. Knight v. Richey
250 S.W.2d 972 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1952)
Johnston v. Selfe
251 N.W. 525 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1933)
Peterson v. Jewel Tea Co. Inc.
38 N.W.2d 51 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 N.W.2d 316, 266 Minn. 61, 1963 Minn. LEXIS 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-eikeland-minn-1963.