Brown v. Redmond

• Citation: 203 N.W. 739,187 Wis. 67
• Parties: BROWN v. REDMOND.
• Decision Date: 12 May 1925
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

187 Wis. 67

203 N.W. 739

BROWN

v.REDMOND.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 12, 1925.

Appeal from Superior Court, Douglas County; Archibald McKay, Judge.

Action by Mrs. C. F. Brown against H. D. Redmond. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.Hanitch, Hartley & Johnson, of Superior, for appellant.

Grace, Fridley & Crawford, of Superior, for respondent.

DOERFLER, J.

The action is one for personal injuries. Robertson avenue is a north and south street in the city of Superior, and is intersected at right angles by what is known as West Fourth street, which continues east of Robertson avenue over a bridge which spans the Memadji river. The principal traffic, coming from West Fourth street from the east of Robertson avenue, turns south on the avenue and then east on West Fifth street, which is south of and parallel with West Fourth street. On the avenue, between West Fourth and West Fifth streets, are two street car tracks; the one to the east of the center of the avenue being used for cars running north, and the other, west of the center, being used by cars running south. To the east of the avenue, between West Fourth and West Fifth streets, is located a park, which the plaintiff and a companion were proceeding to visit when the accident occurred. On arriving at the southwest corner of the intersection of West Fourth street and the avenue, the plaintiff proceeded to cross the avenue at the crossing, and before leaving the west curb she made proper observations, and saw defendant's automobile, 100 feet to the east, upon the bridge, and proceeding west on West Fourth street. When the plaintiff arrived at a point located at about the center of the avenue, she looked toward the south for north-bound traffic, and observed none. She then looked in the opposite direction, and found defendant's automobile a distance of 2 feet from her. The collision occurred immediately thereafter, and while the plaintiff had arrived upon the north-bound track.

According to the undisputed evidence, the defendant, instead of passing north of the center of the intersection in an effort to reach the east side of the avenue, passed to the south thereof; in other words, he made a short cut. As the result of the collision, plaintiff sustained severe personal injuries. The case was submitted to the jury upon a general verdict, and the finding of the jury was in favor of the plaintiff.

[1] Error is assigned by the defendant, based upon the following instructions of the court:

“It is alleged that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety at the time and place in question, which proximately contributed to her injury. * * * You are instructed that by the term ‘ordinary care’ as here used is meant that care which is ordinarily exercised by the great mass of mankind under the same or similar circumstances. In answering this question, you will carefully scan and weigh and fully consider all the facts and circumstances in the case as they have been disclosed in the testimony. You will take into consideration all the credible evidence in the case on both sides, and upon such consideration of all the facts in the case, and all...