Legal Opinion

Hinkle v. Minneapolis, Anoka & Cayuna Range Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 20, 1925No. 24,238PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilson, C. J.

The record presents the abstract question, namely: Is wilful and wanton negligence by a plaintiff a defense to an action for plaintiff’s injuries caused by the wilful and wanton negligence of the defendant?

The bill of exceptions does not contain the evidence. We must assume that the facts warranted the charge given. , This case,' however, must not be construed as an authority for the application of the doctrine we now announce to the facts as they in part appear in the record and briefs.

Contributory negligence bars an action based upon ordinary negligence. Contributory negligence has no…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Holwerson v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1900
  2. Moore v. Lindell Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1903
  3. Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  4. Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. PartridgeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1902
  5. Havel v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Griffin v. ShivelySupreme Court of Virginia · 1984
  2. Pierce v. ClemensIndiana Court of Appeals · 1943
  3. Dart v. Pure Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
  4. Schneider v. BrechtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  5. Schubring v. WeggenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API