Cited by

If he had seen it, he could easily have avoided a collision by simply leaning his body to his left and turning his cycle out a foot or two.” Defendant relies upon the so-called “look-and-not-see” rule of Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , , and argues that, because plaintiff failed to see what was in plain sight, he is negligent as a matter of law and that the court erred in denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Daugharty v. Anderson, 275 Minn. 371 , 147 N. W. (2d) 378 ; Gotzian v. Wolk, 201 Minn. 38 , ; Underdown *113 v. Thoen, 193 Minn. 260 , ; Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , ; and Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , , cited by defendant, are not controlling.

Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , ; Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , .

Most of the rules as to the duty to look are now fairly well settled in this state especially since the decision in the Moore case which laid down the rule that before directing a verdict under what was theretofore known as the plain-sight rule in Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; and Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , , the court must look to the surrounding circumstances and must take into account such consider

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 contributory negligence as a matter of law for the plaintiffs to enter intersections after looking but failing to see the defendants, defendants assert in their brief that

Defendants rely upon Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; and Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , , in support of their contention that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, basing their contention upon the pr

They cite Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31, 35 , , and Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , , to the effect that “A verdict cannot be permitted to rest upon testimony of a party having good eyesight that he did not see a moving automobile then in plain sight at a place to which his vision is specially directed.” It should be

Such cases as Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , , and the Sanderson case, 176 Minn. 299 , , cited by the trial court, have been often here cited and relied upon, generally by negligent defendants who seek to escape liability by fastening upon the injured plaintiff some sort of claim that his actions or failure to act constituted a cont

He bases that claim largely upon plaintiff’s failure to see his automobile before entering the intersection and relies upon such cases as Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , ; and Dreyer v. Otter Tail Power Co. 205 Minn. 286 , , .

Defendant advances Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , , and supporting authority as justification for the action of the trial judge.

Defendant relies on Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , , and similar cases.

Of the cases relied on by defendant where judgment notwithstanding the verdict was sustained, these relate to automobile collisions in intersecting city streets: Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; Underdown v. Thoen, 193 Minn. 260 , .

The contention is that a party having good eyesight will not be heard to say that he looked at an approaching automobile in plain sight and that he did not see it Avhen the physical facts demonstrate either that he did not look or that, if he did, he proceeded in reckless disregard of the danger of collision, citing cases like Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; and Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , .

Illustrative is Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , 216 N.W.

Thereby Mr. Evert at least brings himself perilously near to being chargeable with contributory negligence as matter of law under the rule of *274 Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , .

Defendant cites and relies on the decisions in such cases as Chinander v. DeLaittre, 171 Minn. 11 , ; Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , , where the accident happened in daylight, and not cases where a pedestrian had entered and was well advanced on a proper crosswalk before the car of defendant entered the intersection.

Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31, 36 , .

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.

The trial judge in his memorandum attached to the order granting defendants’ motion for judgment said: “Such decisions of our supreme court as Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , ; and DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; require a trial court to order judgment for the defendant on such a record as Ave have here.

In support of that contention the following decisions of this court are cited: Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , ; Underdown v. Thoen, 193 Minn. 260 , .

Defendants rely on Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , , a case that affords defendants stronger support than any other in this court.

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 , .

Defendant places reliance on Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , , and Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , , and other similar cases.

Defendants cite, among others, the cases of Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , 247 * Mozes v. Borlaug, 190 Minn. 568 , .