Home/Supreme Court of Minnesota/Carlson v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc.

Carlson v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc.

273 N.W. 665, 200 Minn. 177, 1937 Minn. LEXIS 742
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJune 4, 1937
DocketNos. 31,204, 31,205.
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 273 N.W. 665 (Carlson v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc.) 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
Carlson v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, Inc., 273 N.W. 665, 200 Minn. 177, 1937 Minn. LEXIS 742 (Mich. 1937).

Opinions

Boring, Justice.

In suits to recover for personal injuries, expenses, and loss of services arising out of a collision between a milk truck and a bicycle ridden by the minor plaintiff, John W. Carlson, he and his father recovered verdicts respectively in the sums of $18,000 and $6,000. The defendants come here on appeal from orders denying their motions for judgment or a new trial.

The accident occurred at about 6:50 a. m. on July 13, 1935, on a paved alley which extends from Fairview avenue to Underwood avenue between Pinehurst avenue and Ford Road, a block about 1,200 feet long, in the city of St. Paul. At that time John W. Carlson, the minor plaintiff, Avas about six years and ten months old. The milk truck approached the scene of the collision from the Avest. As it came into the alley from the Fairview end it had to climb something of a hill, but before it arrived within 300 or 400 feet of the place of the accident it Avas traveling on a slight upgrade (one-half of one per cent). There Avere no houses or garages on the south side of the 20-foot paved alley, but on the north side there were a number of houses and garages, the latter being placed side *179 ways to and abutting upon the alley with entrances and paved driveways leading thereto on and from the easterly ends thereof. The defendant Arnold, who was driving the truck, was on his way to a residence three or four lots easterly of the point of collision. The truck was equipped with two-wheel brakes only. It was short and, at the time of the collision, heavily loaded. It was so arranged that the driver might sit in the cab or stand in either side of the truck and steer it conveniently by means of a vertical steering handle. In case the driver occupied the standing position, he was provided with brake and clutch pedals which could be operated by his feet. The truck was equipped with a governor calculated to limit its top speed to 21 miles per hour. As Arnold drove it easterly in the alley approaching the place of collision he was operating the truck from the standing position on the right side. Eyewitnesses estimated his speed at from 20 to 25 miles per hour. He stated that he did not see J ohn until J ohn rode out of the driveway on the easterly side of the Eoalkvam garage, just east of which the collision occurred. He estimated that John was then 12 or 15 feet from him. This was undoubtedly an understatement because one of the eyewitnesses testified that she heard the screech of his brakes before his truck emerged from behind the garage. The boy on the bicycle collided with the left front corner of the truck and was so injured that one of his legs was amputated above the knee, one of his thumbs was amputated, and he was very badly bruised, shaken up, and internally injured. There was evidence that skid marks extended westward from the truck, as it was situated'after the accident, for about 27 or 28 feet. ■

The appellants contend, first, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of negligence on the part of the driver; second, that it conclusively appears that John was negligent; third, that the court erred in submitting the case to a jury on the theory of wilful negligence; fourth, that it erred in refusing their request, made at the close of the argument to the jury, that the court instruct the jury as to the rule applicable to those who are confronted with an emergency; fifth, that the court erred in defining the defendants’ duty toward children.

*180

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

Related

Rannells v. Graham
439 So. 2d 12 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1983)
Hogan v. Alabama Power Co.
351 So. 2d 1378 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1977)
Toetschinger v. Ihnot
250 N.W.2d 204 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1977)
Persons v. State
339 So. 2d 1092 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1976)
Weiss v. Great Northern Railway Company
176 N.W.2d 109 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1970)
Koval v. Thompson
136 N.W.2d 789 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1965)
Pelzer v. Lange
93 N.W.2d 666 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1958)
Aldes v. St. Paul Ball Club, Inc.
88 N.W.2d 94 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1958)
Kachman v. Blosberg
87 N.W.2d 687 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1958)
Shastid v. Shue
77 N.W.2d 273 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1956)
Watts Ex Rel. Watts v. Erickson
69 N.W.2d 626 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1955)
Coca Cola Bottling Co. Of Black Hills v. Hubbard
203 F.2d 859 (Eighth Circuit, 1953)
O'NEILL v. Mund
49 N.W.2d 812 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1951)
Lovel v. Squirt Bottling Co. of Waconia, Inc.
48 N.W.2d 525 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1951)
Warning v. KANABEC COUNTY CO-OPERATIVE OIL ASSN.
42 N.W.2d 881 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1950)
Audette v. Lindahl
42 N.W.2d 717 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1950)
Northern Liquid Gas Co. v. Hildreth (Two Cases.)
180 F.2d 330 (Eighth Circuit, 1950)
Thordson v. McKeighan
16 N.W.2d 607 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1944)
Zickrick v. Strathern
1 N.W.2d 134 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 N.W. 665, 200 Minn. 177, 1937 Minn. LEXIS 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlson-v-sanitary-farm-dairies-inc-minn-1937.