Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rintala v. Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Railway Co., 199 N.W. 562.

33 citing documents.

Hanson v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 124 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 1963
Hanson v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 124 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 1963
Pirner v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 104 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1960
Pirner v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 104 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1960
Co. 159 Minn. 499 , , we held that a driver of an automobile, approaching a railway crossing under conditions obstructing his view of an approaching train, who omits all precautions for his own safety on the assumption that no train is due, is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Bridges v. Hillman 82 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1957
Bridges v. Hillman 82 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 1957
Nygren v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 63 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1954
Nygren v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 63 N.W.2d 560 Minn. 1954
Rogge v. Great Northern Railway Co. 47 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1951
Rogge v. Great Northern Railway Co. 47 N.W.2d 475 Minn. 1951
Co. 159 Minn. 499, 505 , , where plaintiff contended that his view was obstructed by cars on defendant’s spur track, the court stated: “Due care in general is somewhat a matter of relativity.
Wright v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 23 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1946
Wright v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 23 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1946
Co. 159 Minn. 499, 503 , , of a motorist crossing railroad tracks who, because he was enclosed in the cab of his truck, could neither see nor hear an approaching train: “The driver cannot shut himself in the cab of his truck, where the use of his senses of sight and hearing are much hindered by obstacles of his own i
Christensen v. Hennepin Transportation Co. Inc. 10 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1943
Christensen v. Hennepin Transportation Co. Inc. 10 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 1943
Co. 159 Minn. 499 , ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.
Olson v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 5 N.W.2d 492 Minn. 1942
Larson v. Lowden 282 N.W. 669 Minn. 1938
Larson v. Lowden 282 N.W. 669 Minn. 1938
Cheadle v. James 231 N.W. 242 Minn. 1930
Cheadle v. James 231 N.W. 242 Minn. 1930
Co. 159 Minn. 499 , ; Shore v. Minter, 160 Minn. 215 , ; Ruddy v. Ingebret, 164 Minn. 40 , , 44 A. L. R. 159; Bailey v. M. St.
Jones v. Great Northern Railway Co. 227 N.W. 45 Minn. 1929
Jones v. Great Northern Railway Co. 227 N.W. 45 Minn. 1929
Co. 159 Minn. 499 , ; Bailey v. M. St.
Anton v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 214 N.W. 661 Minn. 1927
Anton v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 214 N.W. 661 Minn. 1927
Co. 159 Minn. 499 , ; Buelow v. C. R. I. & P. Ry.
Munson v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 212 N.W. 946 Minn. 1927
Munson v. Chicago Great Western Railroad 212 N.W. 946 Minn. 1927
Co. 159 Minn. 499 , ; Buelow v. C. R. I. & P. Ry.
Bailey v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 207 N.W. 26 Minn. 1926
Distinguished Bailey v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 207 N.W. 26 Minn. 1926
Co. 159 Minn. 499 , 199 N.W.
Turner v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 205 N.W. 213 Minn. 1925
Turner v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. 205 N.W. 213 Minn. 1925
Co. 159 Minn. 499 , , Stone, J., said: “Whether in a given case there was a duty to stop in order to look and listen, must depend upon the circumstances.
Richter v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 204 N.W. 881 Minn. 1925
Richter v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. 204 N.W. 881 Minn. 1925
Fink v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 203 N.W. 47 Minn. 1925
Fink v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. 203 N.W. 47 Minn. 1925