Home/Supreme Court of Minnesota/Wagenhals v. Flint

Wagenhals v. Flint

114 N.W.2d 641, 262 Minn. 326, 1962 Minn. LEXIS 713
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedApril 13, 1962
Docket38,356, 38,357
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 114 N.W.2d 641 (Wagenhals v. Flint) 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
Wagenhals v. Flint, 114 N.W.2d 641, 262 Minn. 326, 1962 Minn. LEXIS 713 (Mich. 1962).

Opinion

Otis, Justice.

These actions were brought by the plaintiffs to recover damages for injuries they sustained when their car collided with a truck which was owned and operated by the defendant. The verdicts were in favor of defendant and he was awarded damages on his counterclaim. From judgments thereafter entered the plaintiffs appeal.

On May 31, 1958, at about 6:30 in the evening, plaintiff Rupert Wagenhals (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) drove an automobile, in which his wife, Betty, was a passenger, in a southerly direction on Mesaba Avenue in the city of Duluth, and turned left, or east, onto First Street. The defendant Flint at the time of the collision was operating his truck in a northerly direction on Mesaba Avenue. At the location in question Mesaba is divided by a boulevard which is 25 feet wide north of First Street and 38 feet wide south of First Street. Traffic on Mesaba and on First is governed by four automatic traffic signals located at the following points:

Signal No. 1, facing north only, is at the extreme .southwest comer *328 of the intersection of the various highways; signal No. 2 which faces north, east, and west is at the northwest corner of the boulevard south of First Street; signal No. 3 which faces south only is located at the extreme northeast comer of the intersection of the various highways; signal No. 4, with which we are here concerned, is located at the southeast corner of the boulevard north of First Street, and faces south, east, and west.

There are four issues raised by this appeal:

(1) Whether the south half of First Street where it intersects the east half of Mesaba Avenue forms a separate intersection by virtue of the division of Mesaba by a boulevard exceeding 30 feet in width south of First Street.

(2) Whether traffic entering the east half of Mesaba from the west on First Street is governed by traffic-control signals.

(3) Whether the jury could find that defendant was traveling at a speed in excess of 30 miles an hour when he entered the intersection.

(4) Whether the evidence requires a finding that defendant failed to keep a proper lookout and was therefore negligent as a matter of law.

In order better to understand the manner in which the two highways intersect, a photograph of the intersection is herewith reproduced. 1 The camera faces south on the west half of Mesaba. Plaintiff was traveling south when he made a left turn, turning east on First Street. At the time of the collision the defendant was coming up the east half of Mesaba heading north. Visible in the picture are three of the traffic signals described, No. 1 being at the right, No. 2 being in the middle, and No. 4 being at the left. Traffic signal No. 3 is out of the photograph to the left.

Plaintiff testified that in the course of making the left turn he stopped momentarily before crossing the east half of Mesaba and had nearly cleared the intersection when he was struck on the rear-right side of his car by defendant. The theory on which plaintiffs rely for recovery is that the 38-foot boulevard south of First Street makes *330 the south half of First Street, where it intersects the east half of Mesaba, a separate intersection under Minn. St. 169.01, subd. 36(b), which reads as follows:

*329

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

Related

Wallace v. Nelson
178 N.W.2d 698 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1970)
Lapides v. Wagenhals
173 N.W.2d 334 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1969)
Arteiro v. Coca Cola Bottling, Midwest, Inc.
47 F.R.D. 186 (D. Minnesota, 1969)
Kantar v. West End Air Conditioning Co.
144 N.W.2d 592 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 N.W.2d 641, 262 Minn. 326, 1962 Minn. LEXIS 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagenhals-v-flint-minn-1962.