Labarre v. St. Paul City Railway Company

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Labarre v. St. Paul City Railway Company

241 N.W. 674, 185 Minn. 514, 1932 Minn. LEXIS 803

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 18, 1932

DocketNo. 28,778.

StatusPublished

This text of 241 N.W. 674 (Labarre v. St. Paul City Railway Company) 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

Labarre v. St. Paul City Railway Company, 241 N.W. 674, 185 Minn. 514, 1932 Minn. LEXIS 803 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Wilson, C. J.

Defendant appealed from a judgment.

The action sounds in negligence. Plaintiff drove his team pulling a delivery wagon along an alley in the wholesale district in St. Paul. He came to Fifth street, upon which is a double street car track, from the north, and intended to cross and continue straight ahead into the alley in the next block.

It was the duty of plaintiff in entering upon the street from the alley to yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on such highway. 1 Mason, 1927, § 2720-19. As he entered the street a street car approached from the east on the northerly track, and he stopped and permitted this car to pass. He immediately started across the street just behind the passing street car, and just about *515 the time his wagon reached the north rail on the eastbound track he was struck by an eastbound car traveling 15 to 20 miles per hour. He had not seen this car, and of course for a time it was hidden from view by the car going in the opposite direction. He did not know of the presence of this car until the collision.

The record does not show any emergency. Plaintiff was apparently unmindful of the possible danger from a car traveling east. The place of the accident was in the middle of the block. It was his duty to exercise due care. He could easily have avoided the accident. Failure on his part to exercise a proper degree of care for his own protection obviously contributed to the accident. We are of the opinion that he was guilty of contributory negligence.

Reversed.

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

Wilson, C. J.

Defendant appealed from a judgment.

The action sounds in negligence. Plaintiff drove his team pulling a delivery wagon along an alley in the wholesale district in St. Paul. He came to Fifth street, upon which is a double street car track, from the north, and intended to cross and continue straight ahead into the alley in the next block.

It was the duty of plaintiff in entering upon the street from the alley to yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on such highway. 1 Mason, 1927, § 2720-19. As he entered the street a street car approached from the east on the northerly track, and he stopped and permitted this car to pass. He immediately started across the street just behind the passing street car, and just about *515 the time his wagon reached the north rail on the eastbound track he was struck by an eastbound car traveling 15 to 20 miles per hour. He had not seen this car, and of course for a time it was hidden from view by the car going in the opposite direction. He did not know of the presence of this car until the collision.

The record does not show any emergency. Plaintiff was apparently unmindful of the possible danger from a car traveling east. The place of the accident was in the middle of the block. It was his duty to exercise due care. He could easily have avoided the accident. Failure on his part to exercise a proper degree of care for his own protection obviously contributed to the accident. We are of the opinion that he was guilty of contributory negligence.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 N.W. 674, 185 Minn. 514, 1932 Minn. LEXIS 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/labarre-v-st-paul-city-railway-company-minn-1932.