Court Opinion

ID: 9658312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:55:10.375522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:53.530401
License: Public Domain

Thomas Gallagher, Justice
(dissenting).
I am of the opinion that, as a matter of law, defendant’s negligence was a concurrent cause of the accident herein. Ordinarily, the driver of a veMcle following another has the duty of having it under such control as to be able to stop in time before coming in contact with a preceding veMcle called upon to slow down or stop because of traffic conditions. See, 8 Am. Jur. (2d) Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 773; Minn. St. 169.18, subd. 8; Wilson v. Sorge, 256 Minn. 125, 97 N. W. (2d) 477; Retzlaff v. Soman Home Furnishings, 260 Wis. 615, 51 N. W. (2d) 514. The jury was instructed with respect to this obligation and with respect to defendant’s duty to keep Ms car under proper control. The jury found that he was negligent with respect *535thereto, and I cannot conceive how under this finding such negligence was not a concurrent proximate cause of the accident.
The accident occurred about 5:30 p. m. on a clear day. The pavement was dry and defendant’s headlights were lighted) and operating properly. There was no obstacle or obstruction on the highway or adjacent to it to obscure his vision. When he first observed plaintiff’s car, it was about 100 feet ahead of him. After he had1 observed its brake lights go on, he applied his brakes, but even after this and1 after skidding some 50 feet, he was unable to bring his car to a stop before striking plaintiff’s car in the rear.
There can be no dispute but that this was the cause of the collision. The car driven by Mr. Trupiano, which was coming from the opposite direction and which turned to the left in front of plaintiff’s car, did not come in contact with plaintiff’s car at any time. Any negligence which might be attributable to Trupiano was almost simultaneous with the negligence of defendant and could not in any respect have insulated defendant’s negligence as a concurring cause of the accident. See, Haugen v. Dick Thayer Motor Co. 253 Minn. 199, 91 N. W. (2d) 585; Lee v. Lee, 248 Minn. 496, 80 N. W. (2d) 529, 67 A. L. R. (2d) 176; Souden v. Johnson, 267 Minn. 151, 125 N. W. (2d) 742.
Mr. Justice Sheran took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.