Battice v. Michaelis
| Decision Date | 15 November 1949 |
| Parties | BATTICE, v. MICHAELIS et al. FRIEDE, v. MICHAELIS et al. McCARTHY, v. FRIEDE et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Schubring, Ryan, Petersen & Sutherand, Madison, for appellant.
Curkeet & Curkeet, Madison, for plaintiff and respondent.
Roberts, Roe & Boardman, Madison, Walter M. Bjork, Madison, of counsel, for defendants and respondents.
Schubring, Ryan, Petersen & Sutherland, Madison, for appellant.
Roberts, Roe & Boardman, Madison, Walter M. Bjork, Madison of counsel, for respondents.
Schubring, Ryan, Petersen & Sutherland, Madison, for appellant.
Edward J. Owens, Madison, for plaintiff and respondent.
Roberts, Roe & Boardman, Madison, Walter M. Bjork, Madison of counsel, for defendants and respondents.
Appellant Friede contends that Michaelis was negligent as a matter of law with respect to both speed and lookout.
The southwest corner of the intersection, which was between the two vehicles as they approached each other, is occupied by a building which makes it a so-called 'blind corner.'
Michaelis testified that as he approached the intersection he observed the traffic light on the northeast corner and that it was green for traffic on Regent street; that he continued to observe this light, and that it remained green until he was into the intersection and, in fact, until he was struck by the truck driven by Friede.
Counsel for appellant contends that it is the law that a driver entering an intersection with the green light in his favor must exercise the care of reasonable lookout for cross traffic which may violate the red light on the intersecting street.
In connection with the questions submitted on lookout appellant's counsel requested the court to ask, '(a) Did Ernest J. Michaelis enter the intersection against the green light?' 'If you answer subdivision (a) No, then answer this question: 'At and immediately before the accident in question, was Ernest J. Michaelis negligent in proceeding across the intersection with the green light?'
The court refused to so frame the verdict. Under different facts, if the view between the two vehicles were open so that each was clearly visible to the other, and one clearly reached the corner first, such division of the question might be proper. In the instant case, however, the appellant claimed that he was traversing the intersection on the green light and that the respondent Michaelis ran the red light.
Counsel for appellant also contends that instructions should have been given with respect to the duty of the driver in the intersection upon the green light to look out for and avoid collision with one driving in violation of the law, if he could reasonably do so.
The issues being crystalized as they were, we are of the opinion that the trial court correctly refused to frame the verdict as requested and that the instructions given were adequate to apprise the jury of the principle of law which governed.
The evidence is ample to support the jury's finding that Friede was negligent with respect to running the red light, as counsel concedes, and also that he was negligent with respect to speed and lookout. The sedan was thrown at almost right angles from the point of impact to the tavern where it came to rest, a fact from which the jury could infer that the truck was traveling at excessive speed.
It was undisputed that Michaelis was driving twenty to twenty-five miles per hour. Friede claimed that he had stopped for a 'walk' signal and was just starting in motion. The jury might well believe his testimony on speed to be contrary to the physical facts. His testimony with respect to the walk light was proven erroneous later by evidence that the walk lights are not in operation between 10 p. m. and 7 a. m.
The speed of the respondent was within the limits established by...
To continue reading
Request your trial