Court Opinion

ID: 9724607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:04:22.535383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:03.022486
License: Public Domain

Murphy, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the result. I cannot agree with the views expressed in the majority opinion in so far as they might be interpreted to propose the repeal of Minn. St. 602.04. The legislature has the power *524in civil cases to establish a rule of law relating to presumptive evidence that is essentially a regulation of the burden of proof. State v. Edwards, 269 Minn. 343, 130 N. W. (2d) 623; TePoel v. Larson, 236 Minn. 482, 53 N. W. (2d) 468; State v. Higgin, 257 Minn. 46, 99 N. W. (2d) 902. There is a valid reason for the presumption. It may be assumed that in adopting § 602.04 the legislature had in mind that in the absence of the testimony of eyewitnesses to an accident or other evidence sufficient to dispell or rebut a presumption of due care, it is reasonable to assume that the decedent, acting on the instinct of self-preservation, was in the exercise of ordinary care. See Mr. Chief Justice Dell’s concurring opinion in Lambach v. Northwestern Refining Co. Inc. 261 Minn. 115, 125, 111 N. W. (2d) 345, 352; Roeck v. Halvorson, 254 Minn. 394, 95 N. W. (2d) 172, 44 Minn. L. Rev. 352; 25 C. J. S., Death, §§80 and 89, pp. 1207 and 1221; 31A C. J. S., Evidence, § 135.