Court Opinion

ID: 9731606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:52:05.214591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:20.087183
License: Public Domain

Deel, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result. The only substantial issue in this case, as I see it, is whether the defendant Wayne Dammann was driving at an excessive rate of speed. As I view the evidence, no special hazards existed at the intersection where the collision occurred other than the presence of the decedent Dahling’s truck which the jury had a right to find was approaching the intersection slowly. In this situation, under the facts of this case, defendant driver, being on the through highway which was protected by stop signs, was entitled to drive his automobile at a speed of 50 miles an hour at the time that the accident occurred pursuant to M. S. A. 169.14, subd. 2(3), without being subjected to a charge of negligence. Schleuder v. Soltow, 239 Minn. 453, 59 N. W. (2d) 320.
However, from the great force and magnitude of the collision, the location of the vehicles after the accident, and the other circumstances and evidence pointed out in the majority opinion, the jury, in my judgment, was justified in finding that Dammann was driving in excess of 50 miles an hour and that, therefore, whether he was negligent, and if so, whether his negligence was the proximate cause of the collision, *183were issues to be resolved by the jury. Certainly we should not hold, on a set of facts such as we have here, that a claim of negligence based upon excessive'speed cannot be established because of a lack of eyewitnesses.