Cited by

Kedrowski v. Czech, 244 Minn. 111 , 69 N. W. (2d) 337 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , .

The rule is well established and hardly needs citation that— «# * * jt is only in the clearest of cases when the facts are undisputed and it is plain that all reasonable men can draw but one con *189 elusion, that the question of contributory negligence becomes one of law.” Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252, 254 , .

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 , .

See, also, Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , , and cases there cited.

In a case such as this, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, negligence and contributory negligence of motorists involved in a collision at an intersection are fact questions for the determination of the jury.” Likewise, in Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , , where a plaintiff had skidded 70 to 80 feet before stopping on a *341 slippery pavement, we held that the question' of contributory negligence was for the jury.

Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , , and cases there cited.

Co. 179 Minn. 172 , ; Peterson v. Doll, 184 Minn. 213 , ; Horsman v. Bigelow, 184 Minn. 514 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , .

Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , , and cases there cited.

*Page 12 The rule that "it is only in the clearest of cases when the facts are undisputed * * * that the question of contributory negligence becomes one of law" (Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , 254 , 230 N.W.

Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn 252, 254, , and cases cited.

Co. 169 Minn. 342 , ; Eichhorn v. Lundin, 172 Minn. 591 , ; Fitzgerald v. Village of Bovey, 174 Minn 450, ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , ; Heikkinen v. Cashen, 183 Minn. 146 , ; Brown v. Raymond Bros. M. T. Inc. 186 Minn. 321 , .

Forster v. Consumers W. S. Co. 174 Minn. 105 , ; Brown v. Raymond Bros. Motor Transportation, Inc. 186 Minn. 321 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , ; Knutson v. Farmers Co-op.

In Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , , the night upon which the accident occurred was dark and misty, and a drizzling rain was falling.

Creamery, 180 Minn. 116 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252 , ; Ward v. Bandel, 181 Minn. 32 , , this section was involved,' but no contention was made concerning its unreasonableness as applied to a highway of so narrow width that a truck of this sort could not stop upon the.^traveled portion of the roadway in a position to leave 15 feet on its lef

The case has been here before, 180 Minn. 252 , .

The case has been here before, 180 Minn. 252 , 230 N.W.

The general rule governing a situation such as is disclosed by, the evidence here is found in Mechler v. McMahon, 180 Minn. 252, 254 , , wherein it is stated: “It is only in the clearest of cases when the facts are undisputed and it is plain that all reasonable men can draw but one conclusion, that the question of contributory negligence becomes one of law.” *216 This case is not such a one.