The actions involved on this appeal result from an automobile accident which occurred July 20, 1968, at the intersection of County Road No. 13 and County Road No. 6 in Nobles County, approximately 5 miles south of the village of Rushmore, Minnesota, between an automobile driven by Ronald W. Bass and a pickup truck driven by William John Christians.
As a result of the collision, Bass was injured, and Terry Eggleston and Ramona I. Rosenbrook, passengers in his automobile, were killed. William Christians and his passengers, Hilda Christians, his wife, and Gladys Christians, his daughter-in-law, were injured.
Edwin B. Seivert, trustee for the heirs of Ramona Rosenbrook, and Carol Eggleston, trustee for the heirs of Terry Eggleston, commenced actions for death by wrongful act against both drivers. Gladys Christians and LeRoy Christians commenced an action against both for personal injuries and consequential damages, and William Christians and Hilda Christians commenced an action against Bass for personal injuries, consequential damages, and property damage. By order of the trial court all cases were consolidated and tried to a jury.
*459 The negligence of Bass was established by the court as a matter of law, and the balance of the issues were submitted to the jury on special interrogatories. The jury returned a verdict finding the negligence of Bass a proximate cause of the accident. The same jury further found William Christians negligent but held that his negligence did not contribute as a proximate cause of the accident. The jury awarded Seivert $27,000; Mrs. Eggleston, $13,000; Gladys Christians, $1,200; LeRoy Christians, $825; Hilda Christians, $5,000; and William Christians, $27,500.
Plaintiffs Seivert, Eggleston, Gladys Christians, and LeRoy Christians joined in a motion for judgment against defendant William Christians notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that defendant Christians’ negligence was a proximate cause of the accident as a matter of law and that the trial court erred in not granting their motion for a directed verdict against him. In the alternative they sought a new trial on those grounds and on the ground that the court erred in its instructions to the jury with respect to the duty owed by a driver on a through highway. These plaintiffs appeal from the order denying their alternative motion.
The accident occurred between 12:30 and 1 p. m. The weather was clear and bright. The roads involved were blacktop roadways. County Road No. 6 runs in an east-west direction and is controlled at its intersection with County Road No. 13 by stop signs. Some distance westerly of the intersection on County Road No. 6, there is a sign reading “stop ahead.” County Road No. 13 is a through highway intersecting with County Road No. 6 and runs in a north-south direction. A warning sign showing a crossing ahead is located on County Road No. 13 some distance south of the intersection.
Defendant Bass was driving his 1967 white Plymouth automobile in an easterly direction on County Road No. 6 at a speed of 65 miles per hour. Terry Eggleston was riding as a passenger in the front seat and Ramona I. Rosenbrook and Kimberly Rosenbrook, her daughter, were riding as passengers in the back seat. *460 Bass failed to stop for the stop sign at the intersection of the roads.
At about the same time, defendant Christians was driving his 1968 red and white GMC l/g-ton pickup truck in a northerly direction on County Road No. 13 at a speed of 50 to 55 miles per hour. Gladys Christians was riding as a passenger in the right hand seat. Hilda Christians was seated in the middle between William and Gladys.
The view of each driver as he approached the intersection of the county roads was totally unobstructed. Each driver was able to see the other vehicle approaching for a distance of at least 350 feet back from the intersection. The windshields and windows of both vehicles were free of obstructions to vision.
At a point 350 feet south of the intersection Gladys Christians observed the Bass vehicle approaching from the west. She continued to watch it approach and at a point 300 feet south of the intersection said, “Gee, that car’s coming fast.” Hilda Christians responded, “Yes, it is.” At the time of this conversation, the windows of the pickup truck were up and the occupants thereof were able to converse in a normal speaking voice. Both vehicles proceeded to the intersection without change in either speed or direction.. The Bass vehicle struck the Christians’ pickup truck on the left side at a point in the center of the intersection. After impact the vehicles ran into the ditch in the northeast corner of the intersection.
At the close of the testimony plaintiffs requested the trial court to instruct the jury with respect to the duty owed by a driver on a highway protected by stop signs as follows:
“You are instructed that the right of a driver on a through highway to assume that another driver approaching on an intersecting highway will heed the stopsign, is not absolute. If surrounding circumstances give notice to a person of ordinary prudence that the warning of the stopsign may be ignored, the driver on the'through highway should act accordingly and take appropriate precautions. You are further instructed that the Defend *461 ant William J. Christians was required to take appropriate precautions as he approached this intersection at such time as he saw, or in the exercise of due care, should have seen that Eonald Bass was not going to yield the right-of-way to him.”
The court refused to give this instruction, but read to the jury the first paragraph of Minn. St. 169.20, subd. 3:
“The driver of a vehicle shall stop as required by this chapter at the entrance to a through highway and shall yield the right of way to other vehicles which have entered the intersection from the through highway or which are approaching so closely on the through highway as to constitute an immediate hazard, but the driver having so yielded may proceed, and the drivers of all other vehicles approaching the intersection on the through highway shall yield the right of way to the vehicles so proceeding into or across the through highway.”
The court also read to the jury Minn. St. 169.14, subd. 1; part of § 169.14, subd. 3; and § 169.96.
During the course of the jury’s deliberation, it made the following request for additional instructions:
“What is your definition of ‘a direct cause of the accident?’
“What is your definition of ‘contribute as a direct cause of the accident?’ ”
In response to these inquiries, relayed to him by the clerk of the District Court of Nobles County, the trial court responded, “You will have to recall my instructions.”
It was in the discretion of the court to determine whether additional instructions were necessary to explain the instructions involved. We have held in Sauke v. Bird,
*462
Plaintiffs argue that the evidence in the record compels a finding that the negligence of defendant Christians, as found by the jury, was a proximate cause of the accident. As a result, the principal issue presented by this appeal is whether the trial court was correct in denying the post-trial motions of plaintiffs and thus allowing the jury’s finding that the negligence of defendant Christians was not a proximate cause of the accident to stand. Plaintiffs refer to the basic rule of proximate.cause set forth in Christianson v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
“* * * Consequences which follow in unbroken sequence, without an intervening efficient cause, from the original negligent act, are natural and proximate; and for such consequences the original wrongdoer is responsible, even though he could not have foreseen the particular results which did follow.”
Plaintiffs argue that in the instant case the negligence of the drivers of the vehicles occurred simultaneously; that their original negligence produced the harmful consequences which naturally followed their acts; and that the actions of' each were reasonably foreseeable by the other. They therefore argue that there was no intervening efficient cause which would prevent a causal connection between the negligence of Christians and the consequences which followed. Citing Lee v. Lee,
The trial court approved the special verdict in its entirety, and in its memorandum accompanying its order denying plaintiffs’ motions stated that in its opinion there was evidence from which the jury could find as it did: The Christians’ truck was traveling between 50 and 60 miles per hour and did not change course or speed at a point at least a mile south of the intersection up to the point of impact; the Bass automobile was traveling in excess of 65 miles per hour and did not change course or speed as it approached the stop sign, proceeded through the stop sign, and into the intersection up to the impact; defendant Christians was negligent either by reason of his failure to look or in looking but failing to see what he should have seen; even if Christians had looked and had seen the Bass automobile, he would have been unable to avoid the accident because of the excessive speed of the Bass automobile — i. e., at the time a reasonably prudent man exercising due care would have realized that the Bass automobile was not going to stop, it would have been too late to avoid the accident because of the excessive speed of the Bass automobile.
The trial court in concluding its memorandum expressed the view that from all the evidence received at the trial the jury could well have believed that the extreme speed of the Bass automobile, with no change in speed or course, was the sole cause of the accident.
In Simon v. Carroll,
«* * * The jury under the circumstances could reasonably find that, had Carroll been driving at a reasonable rate of speed, Simon would have been enabled to turn to the right from his negligent though customary course of travel and that the accident would then not have occurred. It follows that the jury could reasonably find that Carroll’s excessive speed was the sole proximate cause of the accident and that Simon was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.”
The court in Simon also made it clear that if in the light of the entire evidence reasonable men can differ as to whether there is a causal connection between the plaintiff’s negligent act and the happening of the collision, the question of proximate cause is for the jury.
Mr. Chief Justice Loring, speaking for the court in Olson v. Anderson,
“* * * Both drivers were familiar with the intersection and knew that it was protected against traffic on the town road by a stop sign. The driver upon a highway which he knows to be protected by stop signs may assume, until he sees otherwise, that drivers approaching an intersection so protected will heed the stop sign and not only stop, but look for and yield the right of way to other vehicles which are approaching so closely on the through highway as to constitute an immediate hazard. § 169.20, subd. 3. In short, he may assume ordinary care on the part of such drivers until he observes the contrary. Zickrick v. Strathern,211 Minn. 329 , 332,1 N. W. (2d) 134 , 136. As said in that case, the approaching car on the through highway was a very immediate hazard, which the driver on the cross road should have taken time to observe and to which he should have yielded the right of way. Here, plaintiff’s driver, until he saw otherwise, might reasonably assume that defendant would stop, look, and yield the right of way. In the light of the present *465 statute, which differs from previous ones requiring only a stop, we think that plaintiff’s driver, knowing of the stop sign, might have reasonably assumed, notwithstanding he could not see to the east, that he was safe in approaching and driving through the intersection at even 45 or 50 miles an hour. We consider that he was free from negligence as a matter of law.”
The evidence is clear in the instant case that defendant Bass was traveling at a speed of 65 miles per hour and, without slackening his speed at all, drove through the stop sign at a through highway intersection while defendant Christians, traveling on the through highway at 50 to 55 miles per hour, approached the intersection. The prima facie speed limit on the through highway was 60 miles per hour.
Upon the facts of this case, the trial court was justified in holding that Bass was negligent as a matter of law. Under the testimony Bass was aware of the stop sign and either failed to heed its purpose or chose to ignore it, thus violating his duty to stop, look for, and yield the right-of-way to cars within the zone where they constituted an immediate hazard.
Defendant Christians, knowing he was on an arterial or through highway, had a right to assume, until he saw otherwise, that the Bass car would heed the stop sign and not only stop but also yield the right-of-way to his car, which was approaching so closely on the through highway so as to constitute an immediate hazard. He could assume ordinary care on the part of Bass until he observed the contrary. Olson v. Anderson, swpra.
A stop sign such as the one Bass failed to heed is intended to warn motorists of the presence of a through or arterial highway, and our statute requires the driver of a vehicle approaching a through highway to stop at the entrance to such highway. Stop signs are usually erected some distance from the entrance to the through highway in order to afford approaching motorists an opportunity to stop before they reach the through highway. Clearly then, the driver of a vehicle upon a through highway who is approaching an intersection, knowing that it is protected by *466 stop signs, may assume, until he sees or should see otherwise, that the driver approaching the intersection on the intersecting highway will respect the right-of-way and obey the statute.
We cannot agree with plaintiffs’ contention that the record compels a conclusion that the conduct of defendant Christians was a proximate cause of the accident as a matter of law. The facts herein are not susceptible to a single inference. It was for the jury, in the exercise of its broad powers with respect to the drawing of inferences from the evidence, to determine the issue of causation. Ordinarily, that issue is for the jury, and its determination must stand unless manifestly and palpably contrary to the evidence viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to the verdict. It is only in those cases where the evidence is so clear and conclusive as to leave no room for differences of opinion among reasonable men that the issue of causation becomes one of law to be decided by the court.
The following cases support the jury’s determination that defendant Christians’ negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident and the alleged resulting injuries and damages: Simon v. Carroll,
Another contention of plaintiffs is that the refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury in accordance with their requested instruction set forth above constitutes error. In support of their contention they cite Dose v. Yager,
Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in its instructions relative to the rights of drivers proceeding upon an arterial or through highway on crossing over such a highway from a road intersecting the same; that the trial court failed to explain to the jury the statutory law on this subject; and that the failure *467 on the part of the jury to find a causal connection between the negligence of Christians and the collision which followed may be directly attributed to the error on the part of the trial court in not giving plaintiffs’ requested instruction.
We cannot agree that the jury was misled or incorrectly instructed with reference to the law applicable to arterial or through highways where stop signs are placed at all points where other roads intersect. While reading the provisions of the statutes to the jury in proper sequence might be preferable, nevertheless, we think the charge on the whole fairly stated the applicable law from a practical point of view. The instruction of the trial court must be read in its entirety, and all that is required is that it convey to the jury a clear and correct understanding of the law. It is unnecessary that every possible opportunity for misapprehension be guarded against.
We conclude that the trial court did not err to plaintiffs’ prejudice, so as to entitle them to a new trial, in instructing the jury as to the statutory provisions governing these cases and in refusing to give plaintiffs’ requested instructions. Tollefson v. Ehlers, supra; Sauke v. Bird,
We have not overlooked other arguments urged by plaintiffs as grounds for reversal, but they do not require discussion. Since the fact issues as to negligence and proximate cause were properly submitted to the jury, an affirmance must follow.
Affirmed.