Cited by

Jablinske v. Eckstrom, 247 Minn. 140 , 76 N. W. (2d) 654 ; Simeon v. Anderson, 243 Minn. 91 , 66 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Johnson v. Man-cilman, 241 Minn. 461 , 63 N. W. (2d) 569 ; Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434 , .

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 plaintiff acted without “caution either for his own safety or that of others.” As stated by this court in Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434, 436 , , 899: “It is only in the clearest cases, where the facts are undisputed, and it is plain that all reasonab

Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull, 219 Minn. 541 , 18 N. W. (2d) 582 ; Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434 , .

Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434 , ; Montague v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. 194 Minn. 546 , ; Nye v. Bach, 196 Minn. 330 , ; Jeddeloh v. Hockenhull, 219 Minn. 541 , 18 N. W. (2d) 582 .

In the following cases, we held that contributory negligence was a jury issue under facts somewhat analogous to those *544 in the instant case: Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434 , ; Montague v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. 194 Minn. 546 , ; Ernst v. Union City Mission, 199 Minn. 489 , .

Rather, we may repeat what we said in Dahl v. Collette, 206 Minn. 604, 607 , : “It is enough to say that in Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434, 437 , , we said that in cases like Chandler v. Buchanan * * that ‘the plaintiffs, who were held negligent, heedlessly drove into an intersection without looking to their right.

Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434, 436 , .

Cf. Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434 , , and Bayers v. Bongfeldt, 201 Minn. 546 , ; and see generally, 4 Dunnell, Dig.

Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434, 436 , ; Pearson v. Norell, 198 Minn. 303 , .

In Dahl v. Collette, 206 Minn. 604, 607 , , following Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434 , , we pointed out that the cited cases involved situations where the plaintiff drove heedlessly into an intersection and did not see the defendant’s car then in plain view and practically at the intersection.

It is enough to say that in Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434, 437 , , we said that in cases like Chandler v. Buchanan and Hermanson v. Switzer that “the plaintiffs, who Avere held negligent, heedlessly drove into an intersection without looking to their right.

Similar to that situation were the drivers in Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434 , ; Pearson v. Norell, 198 Minn. 303 , .

This court in Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434, 435 , , said: “The jury could further find that plaintiff entered the intersection at a time when defendant was at such a distance therefrom that she had no reasonable ground to apprehend that he would collide with her car if he exercised ordinary care.

Pearson v. Norell, 198 Minn. 303 , ; Overly v. Troy L. & C. Inc. 196 Minn. 413 , ; Montague v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. 194 Minn. 546 , ; Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434 , ; Henjum v. Smith, 190 Minn. 378 , ; Primock v. Goldenberg, 161 Minn. 160 , , 37 A. L. R. *379 484; 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434, 436 , .

Primock v. Goldenberg, 161 Minn. 160 , , 37 A. L. R. 484; Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434 , ; Duffey v. Curtis, 193 Minn. 358 , .

Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434 , , and cases cited.

Guthrie v. Brown, 192 Minn. 434 , .