Cited by

Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95, 97 , 179 N.W.

Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , .

Wilmes v. Mihelich, 223 Minn. 139 , 25 N. W. (2d) 833 ; Kane v. Locke, 216 Minn. 170 , 12 N. W. (2d) 495 ; Draxton v. Katzmarek, 203 Minn. 161 , ; Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , ; Geiger v. Sanitary Farm Dairies, 146 Minn. 235 , ; Carlson v. Stork, 188 Minn. 204 , ; Coffman v. Kummer, 179 Minn. 120 , .

Through analogy to Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , , where it was held to be contributory negligence as a matter of law for plaintiff’s driver to enter an intersection while her view of traffic was totally obstructed, and Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , , and DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , , where it was held to be co

& Supp. § 6976; 3 Cooley, Torts (4 ed.) § 507; Armstead v. Lounsberry, 129 Minn. 34 , , 9 N. C. C. A. 828, L. R. A. 1915D, 628; Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , ; Christensen v. Hennepin Transp.

Bell v. Pickett, 178 Minn. 540 , ; Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , .

& Supp. § 6976; 3 Cooley, Torts (4 ed.) § 507; Armstead v. Lounsberry, 129 Minn. *538 34, , 9 N. C. C. A. 828, L. R. A. 1915D, 628; Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , ; Christensen v. Hennepin Transp.

*543 Defendants also cite and rely on Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , .

It is true that in some of our cases, such as Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , ; Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , ; and DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , , some expressions have occurred which may lend some color to a contrary doctrine, and a distinction has been drawn between the care required of a driver avIio sees and misjudges the sp

This case is not governed by such cases as Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , , and Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , , holding that mere failure to see what is in plain sight or the existence of an obstruction preventing a clear view of traffic approaching an intersection does not relieve the driver of an automobile from the duty of exercising ordinary care.

In Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , , it Avas stated that a driver of a car approaching an intersection must have his car under such control as to be in a position to avoid a collision with approaching vehicles.

Plain-' tiff’s own testimony presents a clearer case of contributory negligence than in Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; Reddy v. Rex Oil Co. 182 Minn. 139 , .

We have no difficulty in distinguishing the facts here set forth from those in the cases of Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 33 , , and Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , , cited by respondent.

While the statutory rules of the road “standardize rights and duties,” they do not protect a motorist having at the moment the superior right from the consequences of his own “independent acts of negligence.” Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95, 97 , .

Defendant cites and relies much on Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , ; Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; and Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , .

Co. 146 Minn. 118 , ; Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , ; Robertson v. Spitler, 153 Minn. 395 , ; Bradley v. Minneapolis St.

Co. 146 Minn. 118 , ; Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , ; Lindahl v. Morse, 148 Minn. 167 , ; Anderson v. A. E. Jenney Motor Co. 150 Minn. 358 , ; Haggerty v. Rain, 177 Wis.

S.-, 48 S. Ct. 24 , 72 L. ed. 22: “We are dealing with a standard of conduct, and when the standard is clear it should be laid down once for all by the courts.” The case of Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , , is in point here.

Co. 146 Minn. 118 , ; Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , ; Hinkel v. Stemper, 148 Minn. 77 , ; Lindahl v. Morse, 148 Minn. 167 , ; Robertson v. Spitler, 153 Minn. 395 , ; *384 Soderberg v. Taney, 152 Minn. 376 , ; Primock v. Goldenberg, 161 Minn. 160 , .

“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 , .

Co. 146 Minn. 118 , ; Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , ; Lindahl v. Morse, 148 Minn. 167 , .

It is true that the defendant in both these eases was also guilty of negligence in approaching the crossing at such an unreasonable rate of speed, but, as said in Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , , where the collision results because both parties are negligent, neither can recover from the other.

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