271 N.W. 588 | Minn. | 1937
On May 7, 1933, plaintiff was injured by being struck by one of defendant's streetcars. This is the fourth time that this case has been before this court. It is reported in
255 N.W. 809;
Defendant now, as on the previous appeals, claims that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. In the decision reported in
In the decision reported in
Assigned as error was the instruction of the court that "if the motorman, having stopped the car a second time, knew, or by the *327
exercise of ordinary care, should have known that prospective passengers * * * were proceeding forward to board the streetcar as passengers, it was the duty of the motorman to exercise the highest degree of care, consistent with the proper conduct of defendant's business and the operation of the streetcar * * *." By that instruction the court submitted a fact issue as to whether the motorman knew or should have known passengers were about to board the car. Assuming that the jury so found, as it would have been justified in doing, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, then plaintiff was to be considered as standing in the same relation to defendant as a passenger actually aboard the streetcar. Smith v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GALLAGHER, not having been a member of the court when this case was argued and submitted, took no part in its consideration or decision. *328