Repplinger v. Hajek

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Repplinger v. Hajek

296 N.W. 23, 209 Minn. 134, 1941 Minn. LEXIS 825

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 3, 1941

DocketNo. 32,594.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 296 N.W. 23 (Repplinger v. Hajek) 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

Repplinger v. Hajek, 296 N.W. 23, 209 Minn. 134, 1941 Minn. LEXIS 825 (Mich. 1941).

Pincite

Opinions

¹ Reported in 296 N.W. 23. This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Ramsey county denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Appellant urges several assignments of error, but, as we decide the case, it is necessary to consider only the assignment dealing with defendant's alleged failure to establish plaintiff's contributory negligence. The others are without merit.

The evidence relating to plaintiff's contributory negligence was conflicting. That for the defendant tended to show that as plaintiff was about to cross West Seventh street from the northeast to the southeast corner of its intersection with Erie street she saw defendant's car proceeding westward on Seventh street some 150 feet to her left, that she started to cross the street and collided with the rear right side of defendant's car. We think the jury was justified in finding plaintiff contributorily negligent, and its verdict will not be disturbed.

Order affirmed.

UPON APPLICATION FOR REARGUMENT. On January 24, 1941, the following opinion was filed:

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

¹ Reported in 296 N.W. 23. This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Ramsey county denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Appellant urges several assignments of error, but, as we decide the case, it is necessary to consider only the assignment dealing with defendant's alleged failure to establish plaintiff's contributory negligence. The others are without merit.

The evidence relating to plaintiff's contributory negligence was conflicting. That for the defendant tended to show that as plaintiff was about to cross West Seventh street from the northeast to the southeast corner of its intersection with Erie street she saw defendant's car proceeding westward on Seventh street some 150 feet to her left, that she started to cross the street and collided with the rear right side of defendant's car. We think the jury was justified in finding plaintiff contributorily negligent, and its verdict will not be disturbed.

Order affirmed.

UPON APPLICATION FOR REARGUMENT. On January 24, 1941, the following opinion was filed:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 N.W. 23, 209 Minn. 134, 1941 Minn. LEXIS 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/repplinger-v-hajek-minn-1941.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack