Cited by

Tully v. Flour City Coal & Oil Co. 191 Minn. 84 , ; accord: Morehouse v. City of Everett, 141 Wash.

7 E.g., Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , ; Tully v. Flour City Coal & Oil Co. 191 Minn. 84 , .

It follows that a driver may violate the speed provisions of § 2720-4 and still not he guilty of negligence.” We there followed Tully v. Flour City Coal & Oil Co. 191 Minn. 84, 86 , , which we point out was decided after the Mechler case, where we held: “Defendant contends that the speed of plaintiff’s car was in excess of the statutory limit and that plaintiff was prima facie guilty of *328 negligence.

See, Tully v. Flour City Coal & Oil Co. 191 Minn. 84 , ; Vogel v. Nash-Finch Co. 196 Minn. 509 , ; Becker v. Northland Transp.

We have not attempted to apply the rules of cases like Twa v. Northland Greyhound Lines, Inc. 201 Minn. 234 , , and Tully v. Flour City C. & O. Co. 191 Minn. 84 , , distinguishing the Orrvar case.

distinction clearly in mind, because we there said ( 193 Minn. 322 , ): “* * * Nor need anything be said concerning cases where a motor vehicle, operating at night, stops on a highway without a tail-light and is run into, resulting in injury to persons or property; for there the violation of a statute furnished the evidence of negligence, such as Tully v. Flour City C. & O. Co. 191 Minn. 84 , ; nor those relating to an unlawful obstruction, as in Wicker v. North States Constr.

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 the situation was such that plaintiff’s contributory negligence was one upon which “reasonable minds might differ” and

Nor is it similar to those cases where an unexpected obstruction is encountered on a highway at night, the obstruction blending with the appearance of the roadway, as in Tully v. Flour City C. & O. Co. 191 Minn. 84 , , and the •cases therein cited.

Tully v. Flour City C. & O. Co. 191 Minn. 84 , .

42 , where the atmospheric condition was clear, but is controlled by Tully v. Flour City C. O. Co. 191 Minn. 84 , 253 N.W.

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. Tracy, 187 Minn. 529 , ; Tully v. Flour City C. & O. Co. 191 Minn. 84 , .

In Tully v. Flour City C. & O. Co. 191 Minn. 84 , it was held: “Defendant contends that the speed of plaintiff’s car was in excess of the statutory limit and that plaintiff was prima facie guilty of negligence.

Nor need anything be said concerning cases where a motor vehicle, operating at night, stops on a highway without a tail-light and is run into, resulting in injury to persons or property; for there the violation of a statute furnished the evidence of negligence, such as Tully v. Flour City C. & O. Co. 191 Minn. 84 , ; nor those relating to an unlawful obstruction, as in Wicker v. North States Constr.

This is a companion case to Tully v. Flour City C. & O. Co. 191 Minn. 84 , , in which opinion is filed this day.