Geyer v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co.

Decision Date07 February 1939
Citation230 Wis. 347,284 N.W. 1
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
PartiesGEYER v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC RY. & LIGHT CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; Charles L. Aarons, Judge.

Reversed.

Action by Marie Geyer against the Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company commenced December 16, 1936. From a judgment for the plaintiff entered June 29, 1938, the defendant appeals. The facts material to the decision are stated in the opinion.

Shaw, Muskat & Paulsen, of Milwaukee, for appellant.

Werner J. Trimborn and Eugene L. McIntyre, both of Milwaukee, for respondent.

FOWLER, Justice.

The defendant makes several assignments of error but under the view we take of the evidence we need consider only one. That one is that the negligence of the plaintiff was as matter of law as great or greater than that of the defendant. Hence no recovery can be had under the comparative negligence statute, sec. 331.045, which denies recovery in such case.

The plaintiff sues to recover for injuries sustained in a collision between a bus of the defendant and the automobile she was driving at the intersection of West Highland Boulevard and 37th Street in Milwaukee. The plaintiff was driving south on 37th Street and the bus was traveling east on the boulevard. A jury found both the plaintiff and the bus driver guilty of causative negligence, both as to lookout, and the bus driver as to speed also. The comparative negligence of the two was fixed by the jury, 25% to the plaintiff, 75% to the bus driver. Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for 75% of the damages assessed to the plaintiff.

The boulevard has a grass or parked plot 40 feet wide in the center, with a driveway on either side. The south driveway is 28.8 feet wide and for east bound traffic only. The north driveway is 27.7 feet wide and for west bound traffic only. It is an arterial highway with a speed limit of 30 miles per hour by ordinance of the city. There is no dispute as to the speed of the bus involved in the collision. Nowhere within the block next west of the intersection did it exceed 25 miles per hour and as it neared the intersection its speed was 18 to 20 miles per hour. Thirty-seventh Street is not an arterial highway. It is 30.4 feet wide between curbs and a stop sign is placed a short distance north of the north curb of the boulevard. There was no obstruction of view to the west from a point some distance north of the stop sign.

[1][2][3] By plaintiff's testimony she obeyed the stop sign on approaching the west bound driveway of the arterial. She looked both ways. She saw nothing at her left in the west bound driveway to interfere with her crossing that lane. She saw lights which she recognized as of motor vehicles at her right on the east bound driveway 150 to 200 feet away as she thought, but did not notice that a bus was approaching. She started up and proceeded until she neared the center of the grass plot in the center of the boulevard when she looked again to her right and saw the lights of the bus which she thought were then 100 feet away. She was going 10 miles per hour according to her statement. She then proceeded without increasing her speed and without looking again and went over 35 feet before reaching the line of travel of the bus which by all the testimony was well to the south of the center of the south driveway. Her judgment as to the distance of the bus when she last looked west was demonstrably faulty as according to the undisputed testimony it was traveling only twice as fast as she and would travel not more than 70 feet, while she was traveling 35. While crossing the north driveway it was the plaintiff's duty to look to her right again before she entered the south driveway, which was in effect a separate street. Heintz v. Schenck, 176 Wis. 562, 568, 186 N.W. 610. Manifestly she violated the right of way statute, sec. 85.18 (1). She could stop at her speed by her testimony in three feet. The bus at its speed of 20 miles per hour could not be stopped in less than 40 or 50 feet. Effort was made to excuse her not looking again to the right by claiming that when she saw the bus 100 feet away she formed a judgment as to its distance and judged that she had time to pass ahead of it. She did say that when she last looked at the bus she “felt” that she could pass ahead of it. One who on approaching a street intersection is 35 feet or more from the line of travel of an oncoming automobile coming from his right and to whom he owes the right of way, jumps at the conclusion that the automobile is 100 feet away when it is in fact not more than 70, believing that it is traveling 20 miles an hour and he 10, “feels” that he has time to pass ahead of it, is not exercising a reasonable judgment, and nothing short of reasonable and considerate judgment can justify failure to yield right of way. One so acting is taking a chance, is inviting injury. The plaintiff's situation is like that of the plaintiff in Goldmann v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, 123 Wis. 168, 170, 101 N.W. 384. The plaintiff according to his testimony was driving a horse and wagon approaching a street on which was a street...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Kasper v. Kocher
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 1 Junio 1942
    ...v. Chicago, M. St. P. & P. R. Co., 230 Wis. 299, 283 N.W. 803;Hustad v. Evetts, 230 Wis. 292, 282 N.W. 595;Geyer v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co., 230 Wis. 347, 284 N.W. 1;Driessen v. Moder, 233 Wis. 416, 289 N.W. 689;Patterson v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co., 236 Wis. 205, 294 N.W. 63;Schmidt......
  • Packer to Use of Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hampden Transfer & Storage Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 23 Febrero 1955
    ...McCombs v. Ellsberry, 337 Mo. 491, 85 S.W.2d 135, involving a left turn on a dual highway is not in point. In Geyer v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co., 230 Wis. 347, 284 N.W. 1, 2, relied on by the trial judge, the plaintiff's automobile stopped at a stop sign on a through street. The traff......
  • Evanich v. Milwaukee Elec. Ry. & Light Co.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 11 Marzo 1941
    ...E. R. & L. Co., 217 Wis. 481, 259 N.W. 724;Zenner v. C., St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 219 Wis. 124, 262 N.W. 581;Geyer v. Milwaukee Electric R. & L. Co., 230 Wis. 347, 284 N.W. 1;Patterson v. C., St. P., M. & O. R. Co., Wis., 294 N.W. 63. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to......
  • Radford v. Morris
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • 20 Julio 1970
    ...Courts in other jurisdictions have reached similar results in interpreting like statutes and ordinances. See Geyer v. Milwaukee El. Ry. & Light Co., 230 Wis. 347, 284 N.W. 1 (1939); Bartlett v. Hammond, 76 Colo. 171, 230 P. 109 (1924); Heintz v. Schenck, 176 Wis. 562, 186 N.W. 610 (1922); P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT