Cited by

We pointed out that, although earlier cases had strictly applied this rule (Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , ; Chandler v. Buchanan, supra), later cases (Abraham v. Byman, 214 Minn. 355 , 8 N. W. [2d] 231; Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170 , 19 N. W. [2d] 327; Wagenhals v. Flint, 262 Minn. 326 , 114 N. W. [2d] 641) held that the issue presents a question of fact for the jury “except where it is clearly apparent

Daugharty v. Anderson, 275 Minn. 371 , 147 N. W. (2d) 378 ; Gotzian v. Wolk, 201 Minn. 38 , ; Underdown *113 v. Thoen, 193 Minn. 260 , ; Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , ; and Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , , cited by defendant, are not controlling.

Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , ; Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , .

He cites Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , , as a controlling authority on that issue, stating that our court has frequently held that one who looks and does not see that which is in plain sight, and which ought to have been seen, is guilty of negligence as a matter of law.

See, Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , ; Gotzian v. Wolk, 201 Minn. 38 , .

See, Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , ; Gotzian v. Wolk, 201 Minn. 38 , .

y 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 considerations as the estimates of dist

While it is true that this court held in effect in such cases as Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , ; DeHaan v. Wolff, 178 Minn. 426 , ; and Sorenson v. Sander- *64 son, 176 Minn. 299 , , that the driver of a motor vehicle who looks and does not see that which is in plain sight and which he ought to have seen was guilty of negligence as a matter of law, that doctrine was o

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 negligence.

Plaintiffs cite Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , 247 N.W.

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 , .

In the case of Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , , plaintiff was held to have been guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, principally upon his own testimony that he looked west and did not see the truck then moving toward the intersection when other testimony demonstrated that he had a clear and unobstructed westward view of the highwa

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 , .

Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299 , ; Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , .

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 , .

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 , .

Defendant places reliance on Chandler v. Buchanan, 173 Minn. 31 , , and Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , , and other similar cases.

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 , .

For plaintiff it is argued that his failure to see it was inexcusable under the doctrine of such cases as Hermanson v. Switzer, 188 Minn. 455 , , and the others therein cited.