Except as hereinafter provided, the headlamps, the auxiliary low-beam lamps, or the auxiliary driving lamps, or combinations thereof, on motor vehicles shall be so arranged that the driver may select at will between distributions of light projected to different elevations, subject to the following requirements and limitations:
(a) There shall be an uppermost distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed and of such intensity as to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 350 feet ahead for all conditions of loading.
(b) There shall be a lowermost distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed and of sufficient intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 100 feet ahead; and on a straight level road under any condition of loading none of the high-intensity portion of the beam shall be directed to strike the eyes of an approaching driver.
(c) All road-lighting equipment manufactured and installed on and after January 1, 1938, shall be so arranged that when any beam is used which is not in conformity with paragraph (b), means shall be provided for indicating to the driver when such beams are being used.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1955–1969 · leading case:
Stedman v. Norlin, 68 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1955).
Stedman v. Norlin, 68 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1955).
· cites it 2× “55; that no cars other than Baker’s and Norlin’s were in the vicnity; that the “blacktop” was some 28 feet in width; and that Norlin had dimmed his headlamps while Baker was still substantially to the rear of the hayrack.”
Larson v. Twp. of New Haven, 165 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. 1969).
“We have considered the other issues raised by defendant: The court’s failure to charge the jury concerning the applicability of § 169.60( 1); the court’s refusal to permit defendant to show the financial interest of decedent’s employer or grant leave to cross-examine him; the…”
LeClair v. Sickler, 146 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 1966).
“Plaintiffs contend also that they had the right to cross-examine defendant as to whether he observed plaintiff LeClair at various distances *328 beginning 100 feet away from the point of impact and leading up to that point, in order to show negligent lookout and that defendant…”
Minn. Stat. § 169.60(3): 1 case
Stedman v. Norlin, 68 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 1955).
“55; that no cars other than Baker’s and Norlin’s were in the vicnity; that the “blacktop” was some 28 feet in width; and that Norlin had dimmed his headlamps while Baker was still substantially to the rear of the hayrack.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.