Case ID: minn_114/html/0517-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HENRY J. TEREAU v. LOUIS MEEDS and Another.
    
    February 24, 1911.
    Nos. 16,790 — (142).
    Case followed.
    Ward v. Meeds, supra, page 18, followed. [Reporter.]
    Action in the district court for - Hennepin county to recover $16,000 for personal injuries sustained in a collision with an automobile owned by defendant Pierce and driven by defendant Meeds. The negligence alleged was that the machine was operated without lighted lamps visible from the front of the car and at an excessive rate of speed, without giving warning of its approach, and when the vehicles met on the highway, defendants omitted to slacken speed or to turn to. the right so as to give the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding one half of the traveled road and an opportunity to pass the automobile in safety. The answer alleged plaintiff’s contributory negligence. The reply was a general denial. The case was tried before Holt, J., and a jury which returned a'verdict in favor of plaintiff for $3,500. Prom the judgment entered pursuant to thb verdict, defendants appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Harris Richardson and Harold C. Kerr, for appellants.
    
      Dodge & Tautges, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 130 N. W. 3.
    
   Per Curiam.

This case is substantially identical with Ward v. Meeds, supra, page 18, 130 N. W. 2, and the same conclusion is reached. There was no error in submitting to the jury the question whether the plaintiff and Brills, the driver of the vehicle, were engaged in a joint enterprise. Tile evidence made the question one of fact. The question of Brills’ contributory negligence was also one for the jury.

Judgment affirmed.