Cited by

Co. 53 Minn. 551 , , there was nothing to indicate that his vehicle would not be seen and his priority of right recognized.

Co. 53 Minn. 551, 557 , .

Co. 53 Minn. 551 , ), when the law of the case is fully stated in .the general charge.

Co., 53 Minn. 551 , ; Hickey v. St.

Co., 53 Minn. 551 , ; Gibson v. Minneapolis, St.

Co., 53 Minn. 551 , ; Kennedy *331 v. St.

Co., 53 Minn. 551 , ; Flannagan v. St.

Co., 53 Minn. 551 , , that it is the duty of a street railway company to use reasonable care to see that it does not injure persons passing over its tracks, to give warning of the approach of cars when persons are seen about to cross the track, and to keep its cars under reasonable control at such times.

Co., 53 Minn. 551 , ; Greengard v. St.

Co., 53 Minn. 551, 557 , .

Co., 53 Minn. 551 , ; and Kennedy v. St.

Co., 53 Minn. 551 , , and, as applied to the facts of that case, it was correct, but, as a general legal proposition,- it is not.

Respondent cites Watson v. Minneapolis, 53 Minn. 551 , , as authority for the proposition that whether, after plaintiff had looked for the car as he stood on the sidewalk, he was warranted in attempting to cross the track without looking again, was a question for the jury, not for the court.

Co., 53 Minn. 551 , , and insists that the cases are identical in their controlling features.

Co., 53 Minn. 551 , ( ,) and in view of the further well-known fact that, in many of our city thoroughfares, street cars pass so frequently that if a person had no right to cross in front of a standing car he might have to wait indefinitely, no court could say, as a matter of law, that to do so was negligence.

Co., 53 Minn. 551 , ( 55 N. W. Rep.