Ebel v. Rehorst
| Decision Date | 06 June 1933 |
| Citation | 248 N.W. 799,212 Wis. 122 |
| Parties | EBEL v. REHORST. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; John C. Kleczka, Circuit Judge.
Action by Caroline Ebel against George C. Rehorst. From a judgment of nonsuit, the plaintiff appeals.--[By Editorial Staff].
Judgment affirmed.
Personal injury action commenced January 28, 1930. From a judgment of nonsuit entered April 25, 1932, the plaintiff appeals.Michael J. Dunn, Jr., and E. V. Novotny, both of Milwaukee, for appellant.
D. J. Regan, of Milwaukee, for respondent.
The plaintiff was struck on the cross-walk while crossing a city street by an automobile driven by the defendant on the far side of the street in its own lane of travel. The statutes in force at the time contained no provision giving pedestrians the right of way when crossing streets in the line of sidewalks. Before starting across the plaintiff looked both ways. She could see two blocks towards the west, whence defendant was coming. She saw no automobiles. She looked again while crossing the street and still saw nothing. When on or past the street car tracks she was struck by the defendant's automobile. The defendant did not see her until close upon her. He turned to the left to go behind the plaintiff, but she stepped back and was struck by the right front of the car. The plaintiff testified positively that she looked while crossing the street; that there “was nothing no place”; and that she did not know where the car came from. She admits that she stepped back, and that the second time she looked she could easily see two blocks towards the west. The accident occurred before the enactment of the comparative negligence statute when contributory negligence was an absolute defense. The trial court granted a nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
[1][2] The nonsuit was clearly right. It has many times been held by this court that travelers on a highway, whether pedestrians or drivers of automobiles, must look out for approaching traffic, and that they must not only look, but must look with such attentiveness and care as to see what is in plain sight, and that if they are injured because they fail to do so they are guilty of negligence as matter of law. As said in Brickell v. Trecker, 176 Wis. 557, 561, 186 N. W. 593, 594, so here: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lind v. Lund
...in plain sight, and that if they are injured because they fail to do so they are guilty of negligence as matter of law.' Ebel v. Rehorst, 212 Wis. 122, 248 N.W. 799, 800. Lund concedes that he made no observation to the west except before starting to cross. He had no right to rely upon a si......
-
Kloss v. Am. Indem. Co.
...Crosse City R. Co., 101 Wis. 145, 77 N.W. 179;Mertens v. Lake Shore Yellow Cab and Transfer Co., 195 Wis. 646, 218 N.W. 85;Ebel v. Rehorst, 212 Wis. 122, 248 N.W. 799 and cases cited therein. Therefore the court below was warranted in holding as a matter of law the negligence of the parties......
-
General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Cosgrove
...reversed upon appeal. Counsel for appellant cite a number of cases where adult pedestrians were involved, including Ebel v. Rehorst, 1933, 212 Wis. 122, 248 N.W. 799, and Hustad v. Evetts, 1939, 230 Wis. 292, 282 N.W. 595 (syllabus), in which it was held: 'The causal negligence of an intell......
- Feldt v. Cohen