Harrington v. Wagner
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 1931, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Peterson v. Doll (Minn. 1931)
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
There are two actions. Defendant Wagner has appealed from an order in each case denying his alternative motion for judgment non obstante or a new trial.
These are automobile cases. Both plaintiffs were guests in the car of defendant Hill which was traveling east. Defendant Anderson was driving west. Defendant Wagner was driving his car, following Anderson.
Plaintiffs claim that Anderson and Wagner were driving too fast; that Anderson was negligently on his left side of the road, that *384 his left rear wheel came in contact with the left front wheel of the Hill car causing it to swerve to the north side of the road in front of the Wagner car, which caused damage; that the Wagner car was negligently operated too near the Anderson car; that both Anderson and Wagner operated their cars in violation of L. 1927, p. 563, c. 412, § 3(a) and (b), and § 15(a), 1 Mason Minn. St. §§ 2720-3, 2720-15. The question of negligence was for the jury.
We have carefully examined the record and are of the opinion that both are fact cases and the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdicts.
Both orders are affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.