Cited by

67 Minn. 94 , ; Morris v. G. N. Ry.

Co. 67 Minn. 94 , ; Kommerstad v. G. N. Ry.

Co. 67 Minn. 94 , ; Wallin v. Eastern Ry.

Co. 67 Minn. 94 , ; Beard v. Chicago, M. & St.

Co. 67 Minn. 94 , ; Foss v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry.

Co. 67 Minn. 94 , ; Groff v. Duluth Imp.

Co. 67 Minn. 94 , , the court said: “If a person had no reasonable ground to anticipate that a particular act would or might result in any injury to anybody, then, of course, the act would not be negligent at all; but, if the act itself is negligent, then the person guilty of it is equally liable for all its natural and

Co. 67 *164 Minn. 94, 97 , , that “what a man may reasonably anticipate is important and may be decisive, in determining whether an act is negligent,” and that, “if a person had no reasonable ground to anticipate that a particular act would or might result in any injury to anybody, then, of course, the act would not be negligent at all.” T

Co. 67 Minn. 94 , , and other cases.

Co. 67 Minn. 94, 97 , ; Wallin v. Eastern Ry.

Co. 67 Minn. 94 , ; Wallin v. Eastern Ry.

Co. 67 Minn. 94, 98 , , the court observes that “where a party has, for a valuable consideration, executed a solemn instrument of release, there ought to be pretty strong and clear evidence impeaching it to warrant a court or jury in avoiding it.” In Winter v. Great Northern Ry.

Co. 67 Minn. 94 , , and the numerous cases following it (see 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Co., 67 Minn. 94 , ; Peterson v. Chicago, M. & St.

Co., 67 Minn. 94, 97 , ; Baker v. Great Northern Ry.

Co., 67 Minn. 94 , ; Teal v. American Mining Co., 84 Minn. 320 , ; Milwaukee & St.

Co., 67 Minn. 94 , ; Paquin v. Wisconsin Central Ry.

Co., 67 Minn. 94 , ; Wallin v. Eastern Railway Co. of Minn., 83 Minn. 149 , , 54 L. R. A. 481.

Co., 67 Minn. 94 , ; Schus v. Powers-Simpson Co., 85 Minn. 447 , , 69 L. R. A. 887; Foot v. Great Northern Ry.