Cited by

ded that the special verdict should stand insofar as it decided fact questions on the liability issues in favor of plaintiffs and against the city of Minneapolis, citing Mix v. City of Minneapolis, 219 Minn. 389 , 18 N. W. (2d) 130 ; Fitzgerald v. Village of Bovey, 174 Minn. 450 , ; Rasmusen v. City of Duluth, 133 Minn. 134 , ; Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , , in support of its conclusion that the negligence of the city of Minneapolis and the contributory negligence of th

For cases dealing with the sufficiency of notice generally, see Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , ; Ljungberg v. Village of North Mankato, 87 Minn. 484 , ; Killeen v. City of St.

This is well illustrated in Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21, 27 , .

Engel v. City of Minneapolis, 138 Minn. 438 , , L. R. A. 1918B, 647 (notice to police officer in charge of the precinct where the defect is located); Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , ; Miller v. City of St.

Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , ; Bieber v. City of St.

(2 ed.) pp. 1114, 1115; Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , ; Koplitz v. City of St.

re following by inserting the words we have italicized: “If she knew of the danger which resulted in her injury and failed to call Engstrom’s attention to it, or permitted him to drive recklessly into it without protest by her and she was guilty of any negligence in this respect, you cannot give her any verdict.” The requested instruction was a proper one, Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , , and it should not have been modified, but when the charge on the subject of.

Counsel for the city cites Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , , and Carnegie v. Great Northern Ry.

Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , .

Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , ; Koplitz v. City of St.

Co., 80 Minn. 364 , ; Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , ; Cotton v. Willmar & S. F. Ry.

The argument in support of the theory that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence is based upon the rule stated in Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , , and again in Cotton v. Willmar & S. F. Ry.

Paul, 18 Minn. 255 (279); Moore v. City of Minneapolis, 19 Minn. 258 (300); Grant v. City of Stillwater, 35 Minn. 242, ; Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , .

Co., 82 Minn. 120 , ; Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , .