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

794 chars
Defendant’s argument to the contrary makes two untenable basic assumptions, viz., that plaintiff did not look to his right until he got to the east line of the traveled portion of the north-south road, and that by mathematical calculation based upon that assumption William’s contributory negligence was demonstrable. It is clear from William’s testimony that he made his observation at the point where he could see past the end of the snow fence, which was at least 20 feet, and probably about 35 feet, east of the east line of the traveled portion of the north-south road. Also, the distances and speeds shown by the testimony were only estimates of the witnesses. They afforded no basis for mathematical demonstration. As said in Ranum v. Swenson, 220 Minn. 170, 175, 19 N. W. (2d) 327, 330: