Dinan v. Chi. & M. Elec. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1916
• Citation: 164 Wis. 295,159 N.W. 944
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Parties: DINAN v. CHICAGO & M. ELECTRIC RY. CO. ET AL.

164 Wis. 295

159 N.W. 944

DINAN

v.CHICAGO & M. ELECTRIC RY. CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 14, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; J. C. Ludwig, Judge.

Action by Mathew Dinan against the Chicago & Milwaukee Electric Railway Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Judgment affirmed.

Personal injuries. Plaintiff was operating a steam roller, rolling asphalt pavement which was being laid between the defendant's tracks on Grove street in Milwaukee, and was proceeding northward at a speed of about two miles an hour at the time of the accident; he had run the roller south just previously over the same strip and in so doing was facing south; he then turned and went northward; at the time of turning he looked southward and saw no car approaching; he traveled northward about 150 feet without looking south again, and then suddenly discovered that a north-bound car was within a few feet, coming rapidly, and immediately jumped from the roller and sustained serious injuries. The roller was about six or eight inches west of the west rail of the east track, and the car struck it on its east side. The plaintiff claimed that the car was going at an excessive speed and that no warning of its approach was given. The jury by special verdict found that (1) the car was moving at the rate of about 30 miles per hour; (2) that this speed was excessive; (3) that it was want of ordinary care, (4) which was a proximate cause of the injury; (5) that the motorman failed to sound whistle or gong; (6) that this also was a want of ordinary care, (7) which was a proximate cause of the injury; (8) that the motorman in the exercise of ordinary care should have seen the roller in time to have stopped his car so as to avoid a collision; (9) that the motorman was guilty of want of ordinary care in failing to so stop his car, (10) which failure was a proximate cause of the injury; (11) that plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence; (12) that the roller did not turn northeasterly into the pathway of the car before the collision occurred; and (13) that plaintiff's damages were $1,575. Upon this verdict judgment for the plaintiff was rendered in the civil court of Milwaukee county. Upon appeal to the circuit court the judgment was affirmed, and the defendants appeal from the judgment of affirmance.Edgar L. Wood, of Milwaukee (Bull & Johnson, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellants.

Oscar W. Kreutzer, of Milwaukee, for respondent.

WINSLOW, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).

We regard the evidence as entirely sufficient to sustain the findings of fact of the jury; no time will be spent in considering them. There is...