Cited by

(3 ed.) § 7026a, which states that, where one is riding with an apparently competent driver, “duty requires him to warn the driver of a danger which he has become aware of, and which he has reason to believe the driver has overlooked or is not aware of.” Burgess v. Crafts, 184 Minn. 384 , ; Hartel v. Warren, 196 Minn. 465 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , .

See, Hardy v. Anderson, 241 Minn. 478 , 63 N. W. (2d) 814 ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Johnson v. Kutches, 205 Minn. 383 , .

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 , .

Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N.W.

Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Hartel v. Warren, 196 Minn. 465 , ; Lang v. C. & N. W. Ry.

As said in Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79, 85 , , where we held (in Mrs. Wicker’s case) that the question whether plaintiff, a guest passenger, was guilty of contributory negligence properly was not submitted to the jury, it appeared that plaintiff was sitting in the front seat of the automobile and did not see at night “until almost the mo

Co. 171 Minn. 486 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , .

Co. 173 Minn. 237 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79, 85 , ; Burgess v. Crafts, 184 Minn. 384 , ; Findley v. Brittenham, 199 Minn. 197 , .

Co. 183 Minn. 79 , .” *494 The standing train or freight car, as the case might be, obstructing the street was, as the jury found, the proximate cause of the collision.

Co. 154 Minn. 102 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Orrvar v. Morgan, 189 Minn. 306 , ; Tully v. Flour City C. & O. Co. 191 Minn. 84 , ; and Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , , it was his conclusion that in view of the heavy fog and the lack of a reflector sign near the railroad track th

Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234, 237 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79, 82 , ; Brown v. Murphy T. & S. Co. 190 Minn. 81, 84 , .

Thorstad v. Doyle, 199 Minn. 543 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. 183 Minn. 79 , .

See Wicker v. North States Const. *196 Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; and note in 73 A. L. R. 1074.

Thorstad v. Doyle, 199 Minn. 543 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Wicker v. North States Construction Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Pisarke v. Wisconsin T. & C. Co. 174 Wis.

Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Brown v. Murphy T. & S. Co. 190 Minn. 81 , .

Co. 173 Minn. 237 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Engholm v. Northland Transportation Co. 184 Minn. 349 , ; Hall v. Gillis, 188 Minn. 20 , ; Jacobsen v. Ahasay, 188 Minn. 179 , ; Findley v. Brittenham, 199 Minn. 197 , .

Under the circumstances, we think the cases cited by the trial court sustain the view by it taken: Fitzgerald v. Village of Bovey, 174 Minn. 450 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Engholm v. Northland Transportation Co. 184 Minn. 349 , ; Jacobsen v. Ahasay, 188 Minn. 179 , .

Plaintiff cites Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Engholm v. Northland Transportation Co. 184 Minn. 349 , ; Hoffman v. City of St.

the undisputed evidence so conclusively and unmistakenly rebuts the presumption that honest and fair-minded men could not reasonably draw different conclusions therefrom.” See also Fairchild v. Kilbourne, 152 Minn. 457 , ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 338 , ; Forster v. Consumers Wholesale Supply Co. 174 Minn. 105 , ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , ; Brown v. Raymond Bros. Motor Transportation, Inc. 186 Minn. 321 , ; Martin v. T

270 ; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N.W.

After all, “The law makes some allowances for human frailties and hence uses the conduct of an ordinarily prudent person as a standard; and just what an ordinarily prudent person would do under the circumstances here involved must be solved by the composite judgment of the jury.” Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79, 83, 84 , .

Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , , wherein this court held that plaintiff, a passenger, was not guilty of contributory negligence, under the circumstances there presented.

Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , 235 N.W.

Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , , afford plaintiff any relief.