Smith v. Twin City Motor Bus Company

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Smith v. Twin City Motor Bus Company

233 N.W. 316, 181 Minn. 554, 1930 Minn. LEXIS 1030

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 28, 1930

DocketNo. 28,151.

StatusPublished

This text of 233 N.W. 316 (Smith v. Twin City Motor Bus 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

Smith v. Twin City Motor Bus Company, 233 N.W. 316, 181 Minn. 554, 1930 Minn. LEXIS 1030 (Mich. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After a verdict for defendant, plaintiff appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

University avenue is the main artery between St. Paul and Minneapolis. Raymond avenue crosses it near the Avestern boundary of St. Paul. , March 11, 1928, about five p. m. plaintiff drove his touring car down Raymond avenue onto University avenue and attempted a “U” turn on the intersection, his intention. being to return northward on Raymond. There are double street car tracks on University avenue. Just as plaintiff drove onto University avenue a westbound street car passed behind him. He had gotten back north of the street car tracks when hit by defendant’s bus. Plaintiff’s own story is that he saAv the bus coming “with terrific force * * better than 35 miles an hour,” and that although his automobile Avas under perfect control, not going more than five or six *555 miles an hour, he took no precaution to avoid collision. The testimony of disinterested witnesses, passengers on the bus, indicates that plaintiff, after he had turned eastward on University avenue, suddenly and without any warning signal, turned sharply to his left and onto the north side of the street just in time to get hit by the bus.

That is enough, by way of summary of the record, to show how well the verdict is sustained by the evidence. There was no error in the charge. None was suggested at the time, and none is assigned now worthy of comment. The appeal is wholly without merit.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

After a verdict for defendant, plaintiff appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

University avenue is the main artery between St. Paul and Minneapolis. Raymond avenue crosses it near the Avestern boundary of St. Paul. , March 11, 1928, about five p. m. plaintiff drove his touring car down Raymond avenue onto University avenue and attempted a “U” turn on the intersection, his intention. being to return northward on Raymond. There are double street car tracks on University avenue. Just as plaintiff drove onto University avenue a westbound street car passed behind him. He had gotten back north of the street car tracks when hit by defendant’s bus. Plaintiff’s own story is that he saAv the bus coming “with terrific force * * better than 35 miles an hour,” and that although his automobile Avas under perfect control, not going more than five or six *555 miles an hour, he took no precaution to avoid collision. The testimony of disinterested witnesses, passengers on the bus, indicates that plaintiff, after he had turned eastward on University avenue, suddenly and without any warning signal, turned sharply to his left and onto the north side of the street just in time to get hit by the bus.

That is enough, by way of summary of the record, to show how well the verdict is sustained by the evidence. There was no error in the charge. None was suggested at the time, and none is assigned now worthy of comment. The appeal is wholly without merit.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 N.W. 316, 181 Minn. 554, 1930 Minn. LEXIS 1030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-twin-city-motor-bus-company-minn-1930.