Cited by

Co. 226 Minn. 27, 33 , 31 N. W. (2d) 905, 908 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193, 196 , ; Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , ; Swoboda v. Brown, 129 Ohio St.

2 Chase v. Tingdale Bros. 127 Minn. 401 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , ; Fox v. Minneapolis St.

Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , ; Raymond v. Kaiser, 204 Minn. 220 , .

No violation of the statute was conclusively shown, and therefore the burden of proof to show the absence of negligence was not with defendant;” In Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , , we held that the questions of defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence were for the jury where plaintiff’s car skidded and collided with defendant’s truck.

165 Minn. 193, 196 , , we stated: “We must not lose sight of the fact that in certain cases the violation of an imposed statutory duty results in liability irrespective of such conduct as would constitute negligence in the absence of a statute.” (Italics supplied.)

165 Minn. 193, 196 , , best explains the basis of statutory liability and its fundamental purpose to protect one for whom the law was enacted.

While such violations have been characterized as negligence per se, courts have been careful to recognize that they are not true cases of negligence, Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193, 196 , , and that whether the defenses of the ordinary negligence action may be asserted depends upon considerations of policy and legislative intent applicable to the particular statute under consideration.

Unless defendant could justify his being on the wrong side of the road under the rule of Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , , he was violating the statute and guilty of negligence for which he was liable if it was the proximate cause of the accident.

Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , ; Jannette v. M. F. Patterson Dental Supply Co. 193 Minn. 153 , .

N. W. 11; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , .

Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , .

In Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193, 195 , , a case almost directly in point, the court said: *4 “Defendant’s speed at street intersection, failure to stop or materially to reduce speed or to turn the truck in order to avoid a collision, presented a jury question as to the defendant’s negligence.” Defendants earnestly urged that there was

The cases are collected and the doctrine discussed in Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , , and in Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .

Co. 121 Minn. 445 , 141 R. W. 795; Klare v. Peterson, 161 Minn. 16 , ; Tobisch v. Villaume, 164 Minn. 126 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , ; Anderson v. Duban, 170 Minn. 155 , ; Douglas v. Jacobson, 179 Minn. 86 , ; Coffman v. Kummer, 179 Minn. 120 , ; Saunders v. Yellow Cab Corp. 182 Minn. 62 , ; Peterson v. Miller, 182 Minn. 532 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476

302 ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , 206 N.W.

Bros. 146 Minn. 202 , ; Thomas v. Stevenson, 146 Minn. 272 , ; Unmacht v. Whitney, 146 Minn. 327 , ; Farrell v. G. O. Miller Co. 147 Minn. 52 , ; Cohen v. Silverman, *479 153 Minn. 391 , ; Frederick v. McRae, 157 Minn. 366 , ; Kennedy v. Hedberg, 159 Minn. 76 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , ; Sandhofner v. Calmenson, 170 Minn. 69 , ; Christopherson v. Custom Laundry Co. 179 Minn. 325 , ; Suess v. Arrowhead S. P. Co. 180 Minn. 21 , ; Saunders v. Yellow Cab Corp. 182 Minn.

Thus in Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , 196 , 206 N.W.

If such violation Avas the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, liability follows as matter of law, under the rule of Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460 , , unless he could justify or excuse his conduct under the principle of Dohm *481 v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , .

Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , .

Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460 , ; Unmacht v. Whitney, 146 Minn. 327 , ; Elvidge v. Stronge & Warner Co. 148 Minn. 185 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , ; Sandhofner v. Calmenson, 170 Minn. 69 , ; Edblad v. Brower, 178 Minn. 465 , ; 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Co. 121 Minn. 445 , ; Schaar v. Conforth, 128 Minn. 460 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , .

Co. 154 Minn. 102 , ; Tobisch v. Villaume, 164 Minn. 126 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , ; Carlson v. F. A. Martoccio Co. 179 Minn. 332 , .