Baird v. Cornelius
Decision Date | 10 January 1961 |
Citation | 107 N.W.2d 278,12 Wis.2d 284 |
Parties | Joseph BAIRD, Respondent, v. Orville D. CORNELIUS et al., Appellants (Two notices of appeal). |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Flatley, Galloway & Olson, Kaftan, Kaftan & Kaftan, Green Bay, for appellants.
Burns & Lubinski, Seymour, for respondent.
The two appeals present the following issues:
1. Assumption of risk on the part of plaintiff, Joseph Baird, as a matter of law.
2. Contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff passenger and guest, Joseph Baird.
3. Whether the emergency doctrine applies as to John R. Handlen.
4. Absence of causal negligence as to lookout on the part of defendant, John R. Handlen.
Assumption of risk and contributory negligence.
The defendants-appellants contend that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury upon the assumption that Cornelius and Baird were intoxicated as a matter of law. They further contend that the court failed to instruct the jury as to the legal effect of certain blood tests in accordance with sec. 325.235, Stats. It is also contended that the plaintiff Baird was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, and the court should have included a question in the special verdict inquiring as to the contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
The testimony of Joseph Baird reveals that he was forty-five years of age, that he knew Cornelius for at least ten years, and with the exception of the day of the accident had never been a passenger in the Cornelius car other than driving back and forth from their place of employment at the Weisler Construction Company in Appleton, Wisconsin. He further testified,
Orville Cornelius testified as follows:
John Handlen testified that his speed immediately before the accident was 50 miles per hour and that he first noticed the Cornelius car when it was in the driveway leading into Highway 54 and his car was about 300 feet away. He estimated the speed of the Cornelius car at eight to ten miles per hour. Handlen testified that he didn't swing to the right instead of the left because he would have hit him square. The Cornelius car was at the time of the collision about five to eight feet across the centerline of the highway.
The testimony of Grace Bunker, who operates Bunker's Tavern with her husband, is that Baird and Cornelius came into their tavern on August 2, 1958. Baird had part of a glass of beer. Cornelius had nothing to drink. They stayed about three minutes. There was nothing to indicate that either one was under the influence of liquor.
The claim of intoxication of Cornelius and Baird is founded almost in its entirety upon blood alcohol tests made at the hospital to which Cornelius and Baird had been taken after the accident.
The testimony of Dr. Vernon Hittner, called as a witness for Baird, is that he came into the emergency room right after Baird was admitted to the hospital and that he was with him for 40 minutes. That he did not notice any odor of beer or any other intoxicants on Mr. Baird and had no recollection of ordering blood test made as to the alcoholic content of Baird's blood, and that his records show no such order made by him, and further that he had no reason to order such blood test taken. Dr. Hittner further testified that Baird on entry to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Felgner v. Anderson
...of the doctrine's current utility. Other courts have been engaged recently in like effort. See Baird v. Cornelius, 12 Wis.2d 284, 107 N.W.2d 278, 285 (1961) (concurring opinion), and McConville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 15 Wis.2d 374, 113 N.W.2d 14 (1962). One year following......
-
Schemenauer v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...190; Papacosta v. Papacosta (1957), 2 Wis.2d 175, 85 N.W.2d 790; Siegl v. Watson (1923), 181 Wis. 619, 195 N.W. 867; Baird v. Cornelius (1961), 12 Wis.2d 284, 107 N.W.2d 278; Deignan v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. (1958), 2 Wis.2d 480, 87 N.W.2d 529. This time interval may in some cases be s......
-
Theisen v. Milwaukee Auto. Mut. Ins. Co.
...case was tried prior to McConville v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1962), 15 Wis.2d 374, 113 N.W.2d 14, but after Baird v. Cornelius (1961), 12 Wis.2d 284, 107 N.W.2d 278. In McConville, the assumption of risk question was given and we reversed the trial court and granted a new trial on ......
-
Baker v. Herman Mut. Ins. Co.
...contributory negligence. Because of this practice, the concurring opinion by Mr. Justice FAIRCHILD and the writer in Baird v. Cornelius (1961), 12 Wis.2d 284, 107 N.W.2d 278, pointed out that much conduct of guests, which was typically treated as assumption of risk, ought to be treated as c......