Volume 302 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Insurance — automobile liability policy — claimed waiver of</bold> <bold>exclusion — claimed estoppel to deny coverage</bold>.

<bold>Injunction — summary judgment prohibiting franchisee from</bold> <bold>selling natural gas without consent of franchisor —</bold> <bold>propriety</bold>. <block_quote> 1. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment enjoining defendant village of Circle Pines from selling or furnishing natural gas service to defendant Molin Concrete Products Co. without the prior consent of the plaintiff village of Lino Lakes.</block_quote> <bold>Same — summary judgment prohibiting franchisee from charging</bold> <bold>consumers certain costs — propriety</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Summary judgment, granting a permanent injunction directing defendant village of Circle Pines to refrain from charging consumers within the village of Lino Lakes with costs relative to its extension of gas service, was improper. Any ruling prior to the happening of certain events would be premature. In addition, the effect of the injunction amounts to judicial rate-making, a usurpation of a legislative function.</block_quote>

<bold>Automobiles — negligence of driver — violation of</bold> <bold>right-of-way statute — propriety of instruction</bold>. <block_quote> Under the particular facts of this case, the trial court was correct in instructing the jury that plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law in violating the right-of-way statute and that such negligence was a direct cause of the accident, thereby leaving only the question of apportionment to the jury, where both plaintiff and defendant were traveling at approximately the same lawful speed and entered the intersection at about the same time.</block_quote>

<bold>Intervention — action arising out of auto-truck collision —</bold> <bold>right of subrogated insurer</bold>. <block_quote> 1. In an action brought by the insured against other drivers involved in an automobile-truck collision, a subrogated insurer<page_number>Page 158</page_number> had a right under Rule 24.01, Rules of Civil Procedure, to intervene for the purpose of protecting its subrogation interests where the motion to intervene was timely.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — timeliness of motion to intervene</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Appellant's motion to intervene, brought 10 months after the commencement of the main action by the insured, was timely within Rule 24.01 where no rights had yet been adjudicated, no new issues introduced, and none of the original parties would be prejudiced by the intervention.</block_quote>

<bold>Unemployment compensation — voluntary discontinuance of</bold> <bold>employment — failure to return to work at end of maternity</bold> <bold>leave</bold>.

<bold>Workmen's compensation — award for permanent partial</bold> <bold>disability — death of employee from causes unrelated to</bold> <bold>employment — effect</bold>. <block_quote> 1. The right of an employee to receive permanent partial disability benefits under Minn. St. <cross_reference>176.101</cross_reference> and <cross_reference>176.021</cross_reference>, subd. 3, terminates when the employee dies from causes not proximately related to his employment.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same — same — legislative intent</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Where an injured employee dies from causes unrelated to his employment, neither Minn. St. 1971, § <cross_reference>176.101</cross_reference>, subd. 6, nor § <cross_reference>176.021</cross_reference>, subd. 3, evinces a legislative intention to afford to the employee's dependents or heirs a right to payment of permanent partial disability benefits which had accrued to the employee prior to his death.</block_quote>

<bold>Eminent domain — condemnation of tract included in plan to</bold> <bold>condemn larger area — admissibility — evidence of impact of</bold> <bold>project on value of tract</bold>. <block_quote> 1. As a general rule, "[n]either an owner nor a condemnor is permitted to gain by any increase or decrease in value of the land taken due to the impact upon land values generated by an area redevelopment project for which the tracts included are acquired." Housing Redevel. Authority v. Minneapolis Metropolitan Co. <cross_reference>273 Minn. 256</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>263</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>141 N.W.2d 130</cross_reference>, <cross_reference>136</cross_reference> (1966). Where the condemnor had a comprehensive plan for acquiring a whole block<page_number>Page 482</page_number> prior to any acquisitions, it was prejudicial error under this general rule to admit evidence showing the condemnor's prior acquisition of other property in the same block to show the improbability of substantial private assemblage and thereby adversely affect the market value of the property being taken.</block_quote> <bold>Same — value of tract condemned — inappropriate testimony</bold>. <block_quote> 2. It was inappropriate to admit testimony that the source of funds used by the condemnor for property acquisition was the taxpayers.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — same</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Testimony concerning the policies and procedures used in acquiring property was irrelevant to a determination of the market value of the property being taken.</block_quote> <bold>Same — same — inappropriate testimony and instructions</bold>. <block_quote> 4. It was inappropriate to admit testimony that other property owners had sold their properties at an earlier date to the condemnor and for the trial court to mention in its instructions to the jury that the landowner might be an unwilling seller.</block_quote>

<bold>Workmen's compensation — claim against Special Compensation</bold> <bold>Fund — denial — sufficiency of registration of physical</bold> <bold>impairment</bold>.