Cited by

See, also, Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Atwood v. Holmes, 229 Minn. 37 , 38 N. W. (2d) 62 , 11 A. L. R. (2d) 311.

Inc. 186 Minn. 321 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; and Lee v. Smith, 253 Minn. 401 , 92 N. W. (2d) 117 .

Co. 226 Minn. 27, 33 , 31 N. W. (2d) 905, 908 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193, 196 , ; Osborne v. McMasters, 40 Minn. 103, 105 , ; Swoboda v. Brown, 129 Ohio St.

See, Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .

Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; LaBelle v. Swanson, 248 Minn. 35 , 78 N. W. (2d) 358 .

ordinance was enacted and then only if the plaintiff’s injury “(1) involves an invasion of the particular interest protected by the enactment, (2) was caused by the particular hazard or form of harm against which the enactment was designed to give protection, and (3) if it was proximately caused by the violation.” LaBelle v. Swanson, 248 Minn. 35, 41 , 78 N. W. (2d) 358, 363 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476, 481 , ; Cooper v. Hoeglund, 221 Minn. 446 , 22 N. W. (2d) 150 ; Westlund v. Iverson,

Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .

In Fairchild v. Fleming, 125 Minn. 431, 440 , , in construing L. 1911, c. 365, § 16, we said: “* * * it is to be observed that the statute creates no duty on the part of an automobile driver to conform to a specified rate of speed, but simply furnishes a rule of evidence in proving negligent or improper speed.” In Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , , we had under consideration Mason St.

Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Fraser v. G. N. Ry.

Anderson v. Johnson, 208 Minn. 373 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Flaherty v. G. N. Ry.

Anderson v. Johnson, 208 Minn. 373 , Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , (truck parked on pavement.at night without lights); Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , (unguarded concrete mixer parked on pavement at night without warning lights).

Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .

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.

Forster v. Consumers W. S. Co. supra; Wicker v. North States Const. Co. Inc. 183 Minn. 79 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Brown v. Raymond Bros. M. T. Inc. 186 Minn. 321 , ; Adamek v. Tilford, 125 Neb.

Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , 239 N.W.

630 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , 239 N.W.

795 ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , 239 N.W.

Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .

He did not lose his statutory right of way unless his speed was unlawful, and whether or not his speed was unlawful depends upon whether the prima facie presumption was overcome by the circumstances surrounding the intersection at the time.” Respondents contend that under the rule of Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , , violation of the statute was conclusive evidence of contributory negligence.

Paul ordinance No. 6856, § 67, which provides: “No person shall, when riding, alloiv any part of the body to project beyond the limits of the vehicle, except when signalling with the arm, nor shall any person hang onto any vehicle.” From this it is contended that plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law under the rule laid down by this court in Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476, 480 , , which rule is as follows: “We now state the rule to be that, in the absence of valid

Plaintiff claims that this section is applicable to the case at bar, that defendant bank A’iolated the same and hence is guilty of- negligence as a matter of law under the doctrine of Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .

Coffman v. Kummer, 179 Minn. 120 , ; Salera v. Schroeder, 183 Minn. 478 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .

The cases are collected and the doctrine discussed in Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , , and in Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .

Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .

Co. 169 Minn. 342 , ; Jacobs v. Belland, 171 Minn. 838 , ; Forster v. Consumers W. S. Co. 174 Minn. 105 , ; Mechler v. *325 McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , ; Olson v. Purity Baking Co. 185 Minn. 571 , .

Because of the confusion that may have resulted from the contradictory statements in the charge and the fact that the rule was not correctly given, as recently stated in Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , , we grant a new trial in both appeals.

v. Villaume, 164 Minn. 126 , ; Dohm v. R. N. Cardozo & Brother, 165 Minn. 193 , ; Anderson v. Duban, 170 Minn. 155 , ; Douglas v. Jacobson, 179 Minn. 86 , ; Coffman v. Kummer, 179 Minn. 120 , ; Saunders v. Yellow Cab Corp. 182 Minn. 62 , ; Peterson v. Miller, 182 Minn. 532 , ; Mechler v. McMahon, 184 Minn. 476 , .