Gaspord v. Hecht

• Decision Date: 07 March 1961
• Citation: 13 Wis.2d 83,108 N.W.2d 137
• Parties: Harry W. GASPORD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kenneth J. HECHT et al., Appellants, John E. Anderson et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 137

108 N.W.2d 137

13 Wis.2d 83

Harry W. GASPORD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kenneth J. HECHT et al., Appellants John E. Anderson et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 7, 1961.

Action commenced by plaintiff Harry W. Gaspord against defendants Kenneth J. Hecht and his insurer, Western Casualty and Surety Company, and John E. Anderson, Dwayne Anderson and the Anderson insurer, Allstate Insurance Company, for personal injuries sustained when the automobile driven by Hecht, plaintiff's host, collided with the automobile owned by John Anderson and driven by Dwayne. Both Hecht and Anderson and their respective insurers answered and filed cross-complaints against one another for contribution if plaintiff obtained judgment against either. Allstate also cross-complained for property damage against Hecht and Western Casualty. On a special verdict the jury found Hecht negligent, Anderson not negligent, and judgment was entered against Hecht and Western Casualty. Said defendants appealed from the whole of the judgment. Before argument the appeal as between plaintiff and said defendants was dismissed by stipulation. This appeal is from that portion of the judgment dismissing the cross-complaint against Anderson and Allstate and granting recovery to Allstate for property damage.

The facts will be stated in the opinion.

Frank L. Morrow, James E. Garvey, Eau Claire, for appellant.

Cameron, Cameron & Shervey, Rice Lake, for respondent.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

At about 3:15 p. m. on March 10, 1957 Dwayne Anderson was driving north on Highway 65, an arterial highway, at 50 miles per hour. When 450 to 500 feet from the intersection of Highway 65 with County Trunk CC he observed the Hecht automobile approaching the intersection on CC from the west but could not estimate its speed. He knew he was on an arterial and that vehicles on CC were required to stop at the intersection. He testified that from 400 feet south of the intersection a snow fence on the west side of the highway and running parallel to it obstructed his vision to the west. He reduced his speed somewhat and when he was 40 to 45 feet from the intersection he again saw the Hecht car about the same distance from the intersection. He realized the other car was not going to stop, he applied his brakes and the cars collided in the center of the intersection east of the center line of Highway 65.

Hecht testified that he approached the intersection at 40 to 45 miles per hour. When he was about 200 feet from it he looked to the south and a snow fence obstructed his vision to a certain extent; he saw no vehicles on Highway 65. He reduced his speed and when 30 to 40 feet from the intersection a large sign 12 to 14 feet from the west edge of Highway 65 obstructed his view, and after he got past the sign he saw the Anderson car. (A photograph showing the location of the sign at the intersection was introduced in evidence but is not included in the record.) Hecht admitted there was a stop sign for vehicles approaching from the west but that he made no stop. He testified the stop sign was plainly visible from a distance of 200 or 300 feet from the intersection.

The jury found Hecht was causally negligent as to lookout, failure to stop before entering Highway 65, and failure to yield the right of way. It found Anderson not negligent as to lookout and speed, and attributed 100 per cent to Hecht. It is appellants' first contention that the special verdict was duplicitous as to Hecht's negligence in inquiring as to both failure to stop for the arterial and failure to yield the right of way. Since the jury found no negligence on Anderson we do not reach the question of a duplicitous verdict. If we were to find Dwayne Anderson negligent with respect to...