Barnhardt v. Hendrickson
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1970, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Emerson v. Eystad (Minn. 1970)
- Gran v. Dasovic (Minn. 1966)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
After verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding or a new trial.
The verdict reflects the jury’s notion of the damages suffered by an automobile of plaintiff because of its having been run into by a machine owned and driven by defendant. The collision occurred in the winter-time on a street of Minneapolis upon which there were street car tracks. Ice and snow had accumulated to such an extent that deep ruts had formed along the rails. Plaintiff’s car was at the moment out of commission and being towed over the crossing. Defendant saw plaintiff’s machine and applied his brakes, but not in time, because of the slippery condition of the roadway and the ruts in which he was driving, to prevent the collision.
On the merits of the case, there is nothing but a question of fact, with the jury’s decision of which we are not at liberty to interfere. The ruts and icy condition of the street enhanced the danger of *401 collision, and it was for defendant to exercise a degree of care commensurate with the danger. It was for the jury to say whether he did so.
The assignments of error going to the proceedings at the trial present no reversible error.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.