Cited by

Defendant relies principally on Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , .

Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , ; De Haan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , , are distinguishable upon similar grounds.

I am unable to distinguish this case from the case of Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , .

A quite full statement of the facts has been necessary because the cases of DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; and Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , , are relied upon by appellants.

Co. 166 Minn. 118 , ; Chinander v. DeLaittre, 171 Minn. 11 , ; Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , ; Rosenthal v. McCulloch, 177 Minn. 523 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , .

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 , .

But as was said in Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31, 35 , , “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” and approaching under conditions which made it his duty to observe its approach and to exerc

Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , .

In the recent case of Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , , the collision happened in bright daylight and without any distracting circumstances.