Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

164 Minn. 40

204 N.W 630

Ruddy v. Ingebret

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 26, 1925

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1925-06-26

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1925-06-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 1965

1 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

7019251930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Holt, J.

¶1 (dissenting.)

¶2 I dissent. As to passengers leaving by the rear exit, there can be no question but that they are in better position than the motorman to see whether it is safe, on account of approaching vehicles, to step off. But this is not so as to those who alight from the front exit as in the instant case. A person of medium or low stature standing in readiness on the second step as he ought to do in order to alight quickly when the doors open, cannot see vehicles approaching or passing the rear gates, especially if passengers are seated both on the cross and side seats, while the motorman, by means of the mirror to his right, can do so readily. And it seems to me to have been a jury question whether, in the exercise of due care, this motorman became aware of the threatened danger to plaintiff in time to have prevented her injury either by not opening the doors or closing them if opened.

/164/minn/40 · .json · Public domain