Cited by

Co. 147 Minn, 118, ; Carlson v. Chicago & N. W. Ry.

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , ; Olson v. Duluth, M. & I. R. Ry.

Co. 147 Minn. 118, 120 , .

Co. 147 Minn. 118, 120 , , 688: “When the evidence conclusively shows that a colliding train must have been visible from the point where the traveler should have looked and listened, a conclusive presumption arises, either that he failed to look and listen, or else heedlessly disregarded the knowledge thus obtained and ne

Co. 147 Minn. 118, 121 , , 689: “* * * If he does not get an unobstructed view of the track until he is close to it, it is still more imperative that he should look before attempting to cross.” Considering all the circumstances of the case at bar, such as the distractions, the number of tracks, the traffic, the weather co

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , ; Jones v. G. N. Ry.

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , ; Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , .

Co. 147 Minn. 118, 120 , , 688: “When the evidence conclusively shows that a colliding train must have been visible from the point where the traveler should have looked and listened, a conclusive presumption arises, either that he failed to look and listen, or else heedlessly disregarded the knowledge thus obtained and ne

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , ; Jensen v. M. St.

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , , that a person may not heedlessly approach known or obvious danger, nor escape liability by testimony that he looked at a time and place when a train or, as in this case, an automobile, was in plain view and did not see it, is applicable.

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , ; Jensen v. M. St.

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , ; Jensen v. M. St.

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , 179 N.W.

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , ; Jensen v. M. St.

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , ; Jensen v. M. St.

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , ; Jensen v. M. St.

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , , and Jensen v. Minneapolis, St.

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , ; Engel Ry.

Co. 147 Minn. 118 , , and Jensen v. Minneapolis, St.