Amon v. Nehr
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.
- Berlin v. Koblas (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
Appeal by defendant from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The action is one to recover for personal injury claimed to have been caused by negligence on the part of the defendant in driving his automobile, wherein the plaintiff was riding as an invited guest.
*411 Defendant came to a road intersection outside of the city where his view to the right was wholly obstructed until his car entered the intersection. He was familiar with the intersection and the obstruction to view. He approached the intersection at a speed of 20 to 25 miles an hour, gave no warning signal and did not stop, released the clutch and coasted blindly across without looking to his right at the time he entered or while he was upon the intersection, and failed to see and collided with, or was struck by, a car coming from his right on the intersecting road. He claims that by releasing the clutch as he neared the intersection the speed of his car was reduced to seven or eight miles an hour. The evidence sustains the jury’s finding of negligence.
Contributory negligence as a matter of latv is not shown by the fact that plaintiff, a passenger riding in the rear seat and having a general knowledge of the situation and obstruction to vieAv, and knowing approximately the speed of the car, who did not see the car coming from the right, failed to protest or give any warning. The finding of the jury in her favor on that issue is sustained.
The verdict does not appear to be excessive.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.