Cited by

e. Johnson v. Hutches, 205 Minn. 383 , ; Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , .

Co. v. District Court, 140 Minn. 427 , ; Krekelberg v. M. A. Floyd Co. 166 Minn. 149 , ; Ginsburg v. Byers, 171 Minn. 366 , ; Bradtmiller v. Liquid Carbonic Co. 173 Minn. 481 , ; Rice v. Keystone View Co. 210 Minn. 227 , ; Fitzgerald v. Economic Laboratory, Inc. 216 Minn. 296 , 12 N. W. (2d) 621 .

The two cases of Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , , and Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , , cited in the Orrvar opinion and distinguished from the situation there presented, support the view that plaintiff’s contributory negligence was for the jury.

The presumption, however, must yield to clear proof of his contributory negligence; but the question is always one of fact for the jury, unless the undisputed evidence so conclusively and unmistakenly rebuts the presumption that honest and fair-minded men could not reasonably draw different conclusions therefrom.” See also Fairchild v. Kilbourne, 152 Minn. 457 , ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. In

Cream *86 ery, 180 Minn. 116 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , .

The two cases that most strongly support the respondent’s theory are those of Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , , and Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , .

Co. 169 Minn. 342 , ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 838 , ; Forster v. Consumers W. S. Co. 174 Minn. 105 , ; Mechler v. *325 McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , .

The situation confronting the occupants of the Ford in the case at bar is in our opinion quite different and more like the facts which permitted a recovery in Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , ; Forster v. Consumers W. S. Co. 174 Minn. 105 , ; Knutson v. Farmers Co-op.

Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , ; Forster v. Consumers W. S. Co. 174 Minn. 105 , ; Knutson v. Farmers Co-op.

Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , 214 N.W.

Forester v. Consumers W. S. Co. 174 Minn. 105 , ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , .

The case came fairly within Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , .

Nothing in Ginsburg v. Byers, 171 Minn. 366 , , is *483 opposed.