Cited by

462 ; Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , 109 N.W.

It seemed to me they were coming at a pretty good speed.” And, again, in answer to a question as to whether after having seen the headlights of the approaching automobile she paid any further attention to it, she answered: “No, it seemed to be away back, so I didn’t pay any attention.” In our opinion, the case is within the rule of such cases as Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , ; Quinn v. Heidman, 157 Minn. 129 , ; Larson v. Fox, 189 Minn. 536 , ; and Jasinuk v. Lombard, 189 Minn. 594 , .

Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , ; Johnson v. Brastad, 143 Minn. 332 , ; Joncas v. Minneapolis St.

Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , ; Day v. Duluth St.

Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , ; Day V. Duluth St.

Tobisch v. Villaume, 164 Minn. 126 , ; Johnson v. Schuler, 152 Minn. 137 , ; Bolstad v. Armour & Co. 124 Minn. 155 , ; Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , .

Co. 29 Minn. 1 , ; Craig v. Benedictine S. H. Assn. 88 Minn. 535 , ; Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , ; Johnson v. Young, 127 Minn. 462 , ; Johnson v. Schuler, 152 Minn. 137 , ; Tobisch v. Villaume, 164 Minn. 126 , ; Turner v. M. St.

Lundberg v. Zimmer, 159 Minn. 179 , ; Quinn v. Heidman, 157 Minn. 129 , ; Meyers v. Swanson, 163 *137 Minn. 508, ; Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , ; Klare v. Peterson, 161 Minn. 16 , ; Pach v. Chippewa Springs Corp. 161 Minn. 125 , ; Pollock v. McCormick, 169 Minn. 55 , .

Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , .

We think the test applied in Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , , should be applied here to determine whether respondent was guilty of contributory negligence.

Bolstad v. Armour & Co. 124 Minn. 155 , ; Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , .

Undhejem v. Hastings, 38 Minn. 485 , ; Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , ; Arsenean v. Sweet, 106 Minn. 257 , ; George A. Hormel & Co. v. Minneapolis St.

We think the ease at bar fairly falls within the rule stated in *206 Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , , and Johnson v. Brastad, 143 Minn. 332 , , and that plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence was a question for the jury.

Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422, ; Arseneau v. Sweet, 106 Minn. 257, ; McAweeny v. Journal Printing Co. 114 Minn. 262 , ; Johnson v. Scott, 119 Minn. 410 , ; Theisen v. Durst, 138 Minn. 353 , .

Arthur v. Skahen, 137 Minn. 432 , ; Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , ; Weil v. Kreutzer, 134 Ky.

Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , .

Stillman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , , inolved an injury to plaintiff caused by a collision with a horse and wagon while she was crossing a street.

In Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , , the court states that “the relative rights of pedestrians and vehicles in a public highway are equal and reciprocal — one has no more rights than the other, and each is obliged to act with due regard to the movements of others entitled to be upon the street.

We also think that, assuming this requested instruction to be abstractly correct, which is more than doubtful in the light of Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , , it was not warranted by the evidence.

The case is very similar to Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , , and is controlled by the principles there stated.

Undhejem v. Hastings, 38 Minn. 485 , ; Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , ; Arseneau v. Sweet, supra; Gerhard v. Ford, 155 Mich.

Stallman v. Shea, 99 Minn. 422 , ; Thies v. Thomas (Sup.)