Frey v. Dick

• Decision Date: 22 June 1956
• Parties: Edward FREY, Appellant, v. Cecil DICK et al., Respondents.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 609

77 N.W.2d 609

273 Wis. 1

Edward FREY, Appellant, v. Cecil DICK et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 22, 1956.

Lepp & Phillips, Kenosha, for appellant.

Cavanagh, Mittelstaed, Sheldon, Heide & Hartley, Kenosha, for respondents.

CURRIE, Justice.

Counsel for the plaintiff in their brief in support of plaintiff's motion for rehearing contend that there is no evidence in the record that Dick's consumption of liquor appreciably interfered with his care and management of his automobile.

While it is true that there is no testimony that Dick at the time of the accident staggered when he walked or talked incoherently, we do not deem evidence of this nature is a prerequisite to a jury finding in a civil case that a driver operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. In the instant case there was evidence that Dick had consumed six drinks of bourbon and sour within a period of less than two hours prior to the accident. Furthermore, the testimony disclosed that he was familiar with the highway and the particular curve where the accident occurred, and had traversed such curve with his automobile many times in the past without losing control and running off the highway. We consider that these facts clearly presented a jury issue as to whether Dick's consumption of intoxicating liquor had appreciably interfered with his care and management of his car.

The motion for rehearing is denied with $25 costs.