Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bimberg v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 14 N.W.2d 410.

27 citing documents.

Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Frazier v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. 788 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Co., 217 Minn. 187, 194 , (holding that ''[w]hether the standard of care which should have been exercised was actually exercised is a question of fact to be determined by the jury....”).
Petron v. Waldo 139 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1965
Petron v. Waldo 139 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1965
Co. 217 Minn. 187 , 14 N. W. (2d) 410 ; Nees v. Minneapolis St.
Sauter Ex Rel. Benson v. Sauter 70 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 1955
Sauter Ex Rel. Benson v. Sauter 70 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 1955
Co. 217 Minn. 187 , 14 N. W. (2d) 410, 419 ; 13 Dunnell, Dig.
Albertson v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad 64 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1954
Albertson v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad 64 N.W.2d 175 Minn. 1954
Co. 217 Minn. 187, 192 , 14 N. W. (2d) 410, 413 , we said: “Local usage and general custom, either singly or in combination, will not justify or excuse negligence.
Hardy v. Anderson 63 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1954
Hardy v. Anderson 63 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 1954
Co. 217 Minn. 187 , 14 N. W. (2d) 410 .
Propper v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 54 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1952
TePoel v. Larson 53 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1952
TePoel v. Larson 53 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1952
Co. 217 Minn. 187, 197 , 14 N. W. (2d) 410, 415 , the court instructed the jury as follows: “* * * There is a presumption of law, however, that the decedent, that is, Clifford Bimberg, was in the exercise of due care at the time of the accident.
Wright v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 23 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1946
Wright v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 23 N.W.2d 347 Minn. 1946
Co. 217 Minn. 187 , 14 N. W. (2d) 410 ; Empey v. Lovell, 117 Minn. 520 , ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.
Jacobson v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 22 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 1946
Jacobson v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. 22 N.W.2d 455 Minn. 1946
Co. 217 Minn. 187 , 14 N. W. (2d) 410 (certiorari denied, 323 U. S. 752 , 65 S. Ct. 87 , 89 L. ed. 602); Blair v. B. & O. R. Co. 323 U. S. 600 , 65 S. Ct. 545 , 89 L. ed. 490; Bailey v. Central Vermont Ry.
Donea v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. 19 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1945
Crawford v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 19 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1945
Donea v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. 19 N.W.2d 377 Minn. 1945
Co. 217 Minn. 187 , 14 N. W. (2d) 410 ; Lang v. C. & N. W. Ry.
Crawford v. Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range Railway Co. 19 N.W.2d 384 Minn. 1945
Co. 217 Minn. 187 , 14 N. W. (2d) 410 (certiorari denied, 323 U. S. 752 , 65 S. Ct. 87 , 89 L. ed. —); and Hanson v. G. N. Ry.
Travis v. Collett 16 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1944
Travis v. Collett 16 N.W.2d 68 Minn. 1944
Co. 217 Minn. 187 , 14 N. W. (2d) 410 .
Nees v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1944
Nees v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 1944
Co. 217 Minn. 187 , 14 N. W. (2d) 410 ; 38 Am.
Moeller v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1944
Moeller v. St. Paul City Railway Co. 16 N.W.2d 289 Minn. 1944
Co. 217 Minn. 187, 198 , 14 N. W. (2d) 410, 415 , that, even though the presumption is one of law and not of fact, thé giving of such an instruction is not inconsistent with the rule laid down in the Ryan case and does not “taint the jury’s verdict.” Furthermore, defendants are not in a position to assert this objection, because of the