Cited by

Compare Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull, 219 Minn. 541 , 18 N. W. (2d) 582 , and DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , .

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

DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 126 , .

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 proposition that one who fails to see that which is plainly visible must be held to be guilty of negligenc

581 , as controlling in their favor, while defendant claims that this court has repeatedly repudiated the doctrine of the Hermanson case, of DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , 227 N.W.

He walked into the car and got hurt, and that is all there is to the situation.” As stated in DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426, 429 , , 351: “There is no occasion for determining the meaning or effect of the provision of L. 1927, p. 563, c. 412, § 18(a), that ‘the driver of any vehicle * * * traveling at an unlawful speed shall forfeit any right of way which he might otherwise have hereunder.’ Assuming that *148 defendant was ap

Insofar as DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , , Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , , and similar cases follow the same doctrine, they fall into the same category of disrepute as author *174 ities.

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 , , .

Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , .

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 , .

See also DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , 227 N.W.

DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , .

It is true that in some of our cases, such as Rosenau v. Peterson, 147 Minn. 95 , ; Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , ; and DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , , some expressions have occurred which may lend some color to a contrary doctrine, and a distinction has been drawn between the care required of a driver avIio sees and misjudges the speed of an approaching vehicle and one Avho, though having the *306 statutory right of way, fails to observe a like per

De Haan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , .

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 , .

If plaintitff had been driving an automobile and had come onto the intersection with the same absence of precaution as appears so indisputably now, he would have been guilty of contributory negligence under the rule of such cases as Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , , and DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , .

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 , .

DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , , also cited by defendants, was a case where the plaintiff was crossing a street more used than the one he was traveling, without discovering that the car with which he collided was approaching the intersection.

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 , .

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