Stohlman v. Martin

Public Highways—Travel Upon—Duty to Keep to Eight—Construction op Statute.—By the provisions of section 4, subdivision 1, of the act of 1907, amending certain sections of “An act to regulate the operation of motor vehicles on public highways,” etc., (Stats. 1907, pp. 916-17), and of section 3, subdivision 3 of such act, the legislature intended to make it the duty of persons using such highways to keep to the right side thereof at all times, when possible to do so, regardless of whether they should actually meet or see any other person travelling on such highway in an opposite direction.

Id.—Driving on Wrong Side—Act not Necessarily Negligent.—The fact, however, that the driver of a motor vehicle might violate the statute by driving on the wrong side of the road is not of itself necessarily an act of negligence in all eases, as he might for a sufficient reason he compelled so to do in such manner as to leave room for approaching vehicles to pass with perfect safety, in which case, if damage occurred by collision, the question as to- whose negligence was directly responsible therefor would depend for its solution upon the other circumstances attending the accident.

Id.—Negligence—Personal Injuries—Findings Conclusive.—In this action for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while driving along a public highway from being struck by an automobile proceeding in the opposite direction and on the wrong side of the highway, it is held that it was for the trial court, acting as a jury, to determine from the evidence whether the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries was in the act of the defendant in wrongfully driving Ms ear on the left hand side of the road, and that its determination of that question in the affirmative is not open to review under the evidence.

Id.—Pleading—Amendment of Complaint—Increased Claim for Compensatory Belief—Absence of Error.—An order allowing the plaintiff to amend her complaint during the progress of the trial and before she rested her case, by alleging the incurring of an amount for doctor’s bill in excess -of that stated in the original complaint and alleging an increased amount for damages, does not involve matters arising subsequently to the filing of the original complaint which should have been set out by way of supplemental complaint, but merely called for a larger quantum of compensatory relief, and there is no error in allowing such an amendment.