Cited by

Co. 152 Minn. 398 , Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , Maroney v. Minneapolis & St.

Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , 11 A. L. R. 227; O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251, 258 , ; Ridler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 224 Minn. 256 , 28 N. W. (2d) 859 .

Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , 176 N.W.

See, Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , 11 A. L. R. 227; Pearson v. Norell, 198 Minn. 303 , .

& Supp. § 4164e; O’Connor v. Sinykin, 162 Minn. 382 , ; Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , 11 A. L. R. 227; Anderson v. A. E. Jenney Motor Co. 150 Minn. 358 , ; Lindahl v. Morse, 148 Minn. 167 , .

Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , 11 A. L. R. 227, and cases cited.

One may not knoAvingly take such “close chances” (Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35, 37 , , 11 A. L. R. 227) and then legally demand that another shall pay the resulting damage.

Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , 11 A. L. R. 227; Armstrong v. M. A. & C. R. Ry.

See also Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , ; Syck v. Duluth St.

Co. 143 Minn. 129 , ; Hansen v. N. W. Fuel Co. 144 Minn. 105 , ; Podgorski v. Kerwin, 144 Minn. 313 , 175 N. W. *393 694; Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , 11 A. L. R. 227; Metropolitan Milk Co. v. M. St.

Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460 , ; Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , 11 A. L. R. 227; Syck v. D. St.

“It does not absolve one having the prior right from independent acts of negligence at such crossings.” Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , ; Carson v. Turrish, 140 Minn. 445 , , L. R. A. 1918F, 154; Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , ; Anderson v. A. E. Jenny Motor Co. 150 Minn. 358 , .

Q. You then proceeded to cross the intersection, didn’t you * * * A. Yes.” Defendant’s counsel seizes upon this testimony as condemning plaintiff of a violation of the rule of Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , 11 A. L. R. 227, to the effect that where one party has the right of way statute in his favor, it is the duty of the other to yield if there is “reasonable danger of collision” if both proceed, the latter not “being warranted, in taking, close chances.” It is of course true that ordinari

* * * The statute in question does not warrant drivers of vehicles in taking close chances.” In Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , 11 A. L. R. 227, it was said that, if a driver approaching a street intersection sees a car coming from the right and so near that there is reasonable danger of collision if both cars proceed, it becomes his duty to yield the right of way.

In Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , 11 A.L.R.

Defendant’s car, coming from the right on the intersecting street, had the right of way, and, as said in Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , 11 A. L. R. 227, if it was near enough so that there was reasonable danger of collision if both proceeded, it was plaintiff’s duty to yield the right of way, and he was not warranted in taking close chances.

Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. *169 95 , ; Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , ; Syck v. Duluth St.

The statute in question “does not warrant drivers ’of vehicles in taking close chances,” Gibbs v. Almstrom, 145 Minn. 35 , , but, nevertheless, the court or jury is warranted in taking it into consideration in passing on the question of a plaintiff’s contributory negligence.