Fisher v. Clarkson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Fisher v. Clarkson

46 N.W.2d 665, 233 Minn. 318, 1951 Minn. LEXIS 644

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 2, 1951

DocketNo. 35,355

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 N.W.2d 665 (Fisher v. Clarkson) 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

Fisher v. Clarkson, 46 N.W.2d 665, 233 Minn. 318, 1951 Minn. LEXIS 644 (Mich. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Loring, Chief Justice.

This is an action brought by Malcolm Fisher against Hilmer H. Clarkson and Ms wife, Lorraine Clarkson, for personal in[319]*319juries and property damage resulting from a collision between plaintiff’s automobile and defendant Hilmer Clarkson’s truck. The latter counterclaimed for damage to his truck. There was a jury trial, and a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff, both on his claim and upon the counterclaim. Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. This motion was denied, and defendants have appealed.

The collision here in dispute occurred at the intersection of Elliot avenue south and East Twenty-seventh street in the city of Minneapolis. Prior to the accident, plaintiff was driving west on East Twenty-seventh street, and defendant Lorraine Clarkson was driving north on Elliot avenue. Careful reading of the record discloses that there was conflicting evidence on the questions of plaintiff’s speed in entering the intersection and as to whether he entered the intersection in the south or left lane of travel on East Twenty-seventh street.

Defendants’ contention that as a matter of law plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence is based upon the theory that the evidence was conclusive that he was in the left lane of traffic. In the face of conflicting evidence on this question and a lack of evidence that would compel a finding that plaintiff’s position in the left lane was the proximate cause of the collision, this contention must fail.

However, since there was credible evidence that plaintiff was going more than 30 miles per hour, the court should have instructed the jury not only that a driver forfeits the right of way by traveling at an unlawful speed, but also that the absolute maximum lawful speed in municipalities is 30 miles per hour. The court having refused to give the latter instruction and having further erroneously stated that there was no evidence that plaintiff’s speed was excessive, there was reversible error.

Since, for the reasons already stated, a new trial is required, it is unnecessary to discuss other alleged errors of which defendants have complained.

Reversed and new trial granted.

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

Loring, Chief Justice.

This is an action brought by Malcolm Fisher against Hilmer H. Clarkson and Ms wife, Lorraine Clarkson, for personal in[319]*319juries and property damage resulting from a collision between plaintiff’s automobile and defendant Hilmer Clarkson’s truck. The latter counterclaimed for damage to his truck. There was a jury trial, and a verdict was returned in favor of plaintiff, both on his claim and upon the counterclaim. Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. This motion was denied, and defendants have appealed.

The collision here in dispute occurred at the intersection of Elliot avenue south and East Twenty-seventh street in the city of Minneapolis. Prior to the accident, plaintiff was driving west on East Twenty-seventh street, and defendant Lorraine Clarkson was driving north on Elliot avenue. Careful reading of the record discloses that there was conflicting evidence on the questions of plaintiff’s speed in entering the intersection and as to whether he entered the intersection in the south or left lane of travel on East Twenty-seventh street.

Defendants’ contention that as a matter of law plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence is based upon the theory that the evidence was conclusive that he was in the left lane of traffic. In the face of conflicting evidence on this question and a lack of evidence that would compel a finding that plaintiff’s position in the left lane was the proximate cause of the collision, this contention must fail.

However, since there was credible evidence that plaintiff was going more than 30 miles per hour, the court should have instructed the jury not only that a driver forfeits the right of way by traveling at an unlawful speed, but also that the absolute maximum lawful speed in municipalities is 30 miles per hour. The court having refused to give the latter instruction and having further erroneously stated that there was no evidence that plaintiff’s speed was excessive, there was reversible error.

Since, for the reasons already stated, a new trial is required, it is unnecessary to discuss other alleged errors of which defendants have complained.

Reversed and new trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 N.W.2d 665, 233 Minn. 318, 1951 Minn. LEXIS 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-clarkson-minn-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack