Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)

Citation
Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Parent Document
Mattfeld v. Nester, 32 N.W.2d 291 (1948)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
1948-04-16

Other Sections in This Document (117)

Full Text

859 chars
Under the circumstances, a driver approaching this intersection as William did could hardly have exercised more care for his own protection. What more could he do than ascertain that the intersection was clear and that no automobiles were approaching within the range of his vision? Certainly, he could not be expected to stop, get out of his car, and go to the top of the knoll to reconnoiter before proceeding. As Mr. Justice Cardozo pointed out in Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co. 292 U. S. 98, 104, 54 S. Ct. 580, 582, 78 L. ed. 1149, 1154, 91 A. L. R. 1049, where plaintiff was hurt in a railroad grade-crossing collision under circumstances where plaintiff’s vision was obscured, that would involve not only .“uncommon precaution,” but also one “very likely to be futile, and sometimes even dangerous.” See, Polchow v. C. St. P. M & O. Ry. Co. 199 Minn. 1, *120