Cited by

The facts outlined distinguish the instant case from such cases as Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , , and Anderson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 223 Minn. 1 , 26 N. W. (2d) 355 , where no distracting circumstances affected the obligations which rested upon the parties, and Byberg v. Ebnet, 218 Minn. 115 , 15 N. W. (2d) 456 , where the obligation to provide adequate light for an open stairway rested upo

460]; Johnson v. Bamberg, 49 Minn. 341 [ ]; Dehn v. Buck, 165 Minn. 310 [ ].

Defendant relies upon Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , 51 N.W.

In Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , , the plaintiff brought an action upon the alleged negligence of defendant in respect to the unguarded condition of a flight of stairs in a store building, down which plaintiff fell.

Plaintiffs were denied recovery also in Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , , and in Smith v. Emporium Merc.

In Dehn v. Buck, 165 Minn. 310 , , and Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , , this court held that the plaintiffs in those cases were so oblivious to their surroundings that contributory negligence, which had been raised in the cases, appeared.

Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , ; Byard v. Palace Clothing House Co. 85 Minn. 363 , ; Albachten v. The Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381 , ; Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347 , ; Dore v. Swift & Co. 175 Minn. 545 , ; Mullen v. Sensenbrenner Merc.

Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , ; Ryder v. Kinsey, 62 Minn. 85 , , 34 L. R. A. 557, 54 A. S. R. 623; Kayser v. Lindell, 73 Minn. 123 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Strunk v. Wells Brothers Co. 120 Minn. 77 , ; Mazey v. Loveland, 133 Minn. 210 , , L. R. A. 1

A. I never looked ahead of me at all, no sir, I did not.” Citing Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , , and Dehn v. Buck, 165 Minn. 310 , , counsel for appellant contend that if Duffy had used his senses at all he could not have failed to see the opening in the floor.

Interesting though not con *313 trolling is Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , .

Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , , and Albachten v. Golden Rule, supra, are clearly distinguishable.

Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , ; Hunnewell v. Haskell, 174 Mass. 557 , 55 N. E. 320 ; Accousi v. G. A. Stowers Co. (Tex.

The facts in Swanson v. Boutell, 95 Minn. 138 , and Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , , where it was held that no negligence was shown, are so different that they are of no useful application.

Johnson v. Klarquist, 114 Minn. 165 , 130 N. *137 W. 943 ; Eicheler v. Hanggi, 40 Minn. 263 , ; Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341 , .

In Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341, 343 , , plaintiff sought to enter a store, as it was assumed he had a license to do.