Cited by

Defendants rely upon the rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , that the court or jury cannot disregard the positive testimony of an unimpeached witness.

It is our opinion that such testimony is entirely credible, uncontradicted, and unimpeached and therefore falls within the rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , and Downing v. Maag, 215 Minn. 506 , 10 N. W. (2d) 778 .

In such a case, the rule in this state is clearly stated in O'Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , 370 , 221 N.W.

Thus the rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368, 370, 371 , , obviously applies: “The court or jury cannot disregard the positive testimony of an unimpeached witness unless and until its improbability or inconsistency furnishes a reasonable ground for so doing.” The present case is wholly unlike Weinstein v. Schwartz, 204 Minn. 189, 190 , 283 N.

Here, as below, defendant challenges the verdict (1) as opposed to what he claims is the uncontradicted and unimpeached testimony of himself and Mazar, which he claims must be accepted as true under the rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , ; and (2) as contrary to law upon the ground that in any view of the evidence plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law for failure to look to the south for approaching traffic, which would have been plainly visible to him h

Another contention of defendants is that the failure to instruct the jury that it could not disregard the testimony of an unim-peached witness (McCarthy) unless there was reasonable ground for so doing was reversible error within the rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .

Our rule in regard to the effect which the trial court must give to uncontradicted testimony is clearly set forth in O'Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , 221 N.W.

The main contention in this appeal is that the testimony of the only living witness, Harold Foldesi, is such that it must be accepted as true under the rule announced in O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , and thereby is established *357 not only that the driver of defendant’s truck was free from negligence, but that decedent was guilty, as a matter of law, of contributory negligence, so that defendant is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

The case does not come, as employe contends, within the rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , ; Manley v. Harvey Lbr.

The rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , does not apply where circumstances and other facts tend to contradict direct testimony.

Under the rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , we decline to consider the assigned element of plaintiff’s “demeanor *597 on the witness stand” except insofar as it appears from the record.

Relator contends that the evidence is uncontradicted and unimpeached that the hernia was sustained in the manner in which he claims and that he was entitled to findings in his favor under the rule of cases like O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , and Manley v. Harvey Lbr.

Therefore, it is insisted on plaintiff’s behalf that it was controlling, under the venerable rule of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .

Plaintiff relies upon O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368, 370 , , holding that positive, unimpeached, and uncontradicted testimony may not be disregarded by the trier of fact.

O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , ; Ewer v. Coppe, 199 Minn. 78 , .

O’Leary v. Wangen-steen, 175 Minn. 368, 370 , , and cases therein cited.

this testimony defendant bases its right to a reversal, claiming that: “The court or jury cannot disregard the positive testimony of an unimpeached witness unless and until its improbability or inconsistency furnishes a reasonable ground for so doing, and this improbability and inconsistency must appear from the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record in the case.” O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368, 371 , .

O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. *543 368, .

O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .

That they are interested Avould not prevent the operation of the rule invoked by defendant, O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , ; but that circumstance may Avell be considered Avith others Avhich we find present here tending to impeach their testimony and Avhich Ave think prevent the operation of the rule invoked.

She was evidently a disinterested as well as an un-impeached witness, whose testimony may not be disregarded-under O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , .

In that situation the rule must be applied that “the court or jury cannot disregard the positive testimony of an unimpeached witness unless and until the record shows such improbability or inconsistency as furnishes a reasonable ground for so doing.” O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , and the many cases therein cited.

Considering the different and distinct uses to which the car was put — at times for the sole pleasure and use of relator and his family, at other times solely in the business of the employer — and the conflict between relator’s testimony and his previous statement, above set forth, we think the principle of O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , , is not applicable.

O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , ; First Nat.

O’Leary v. Wangensteen, 175 Minn. 368 , ; First Nat.