Gibson v. Streeter
| Decision Date | 08 December 1942 |
| Citation | 241 Wis. 600,6 N.W.2d 662 |
| Parties | GIBSON v. STREETER et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; William F. Shaughnessy, Judge.
Reversed.
Action commenced November 6, 1940, by Lester Gibson against Percy Streeter, Sr., and American Employers' Insurance Company. On the motion of Streeter, Carl Butterfield was impleaded as a defendant. Streeter in his cross complaint asked for contribution and also for damages for the damage to his car. From judgment for the plaintiff, defendants Streeter and the insurance company appeal. The impleaded defendant Butterfield did not appeal but filed a motion for review.
Plaintiff was a passenger in the Butterfield car, sitting on the right side of the rumble seat, on July 18, 1940, as the car traveled west on highway 19. It is alleged that Butterfield intended to turn left onto highway F; that when he reached the intersection there was a stream of traffic behind him; that he drove over into a gravel parking place on the north side of the highway and headed his car south; that as the last of the string of cars passed, he started across highway 19 toward highway F; that Streeter was driving east on highway 19; that Butterfield saw Streeter at from 200 to 300 feet west of the intersection. Streeter claims he was driving at 35 to 40 miles per hour, though there is testimony that just prior to the collision he speeded up. Streeter testified that he first saw the Butterfield car when he was 35 to 50 feet away from it, at which time he jammed on his brakes, causing the car to skid, and he further testified that he did not turn far to the north, or left, to avoid the collision because of fear of westbound traffic in the north lane of the highway. The right front corner of Streeter's car hit the right rear corner of the Butterfield car. There was some evidence that just before the collision Streeter turned his car to the right, and there is conflict in the evidence as to whether the collision occurred on the south half of the concrete of highway 19 or farther south on highway F. Plaintiff sustained severe injuries.
The trial court ruled as a matter of law that Butterfield was guilty of causal negligence with respect to lookout, management and control and failure to yield the right of way. The jury found Streeter guilty of causal negligence as to speed, lookout and management and control. The jury acquitted the plaintiff of any negligence and assessed his damages at $7,500. The court ordered judgment for contribution for Streeter against Butterfield. Since the jury found that Streeter's negligence was greater than Butterfield's, Streeter did not recover a judgment against Butterfield for property damage on his cross complaint.
From a judgment on the verdict for Gibson, Streeter appeals, assigning as error the following: (1) the evidence does not support the finding that Streeter was negligent; (2) even if Streeter was negligent, such negligence was not the cause of the accident; (3) the refusal of the trial court to give certain requested instructions to the jury regarding Butterfield's duties under the statutes and Streeter's right to assume that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonnell v. Timmerman
...the right of way from maintaining a proper lookout or from using ordinary care in the operation of his car, * * *." Gibson v. Streeter, 241 Wis. 600, 602, 6 N.W.2d 662, 663.\'" 88 N.W.2d at page Plaintiffs point out that the amendment to section 85.18(4) in respect to non-forfeiture of the ......
-
Ashley v. American Auto. Ins. Co.
...specifically ruled that this does not excuse a driver who has the right of way from maintaining a proper lookout. Gibson v. Streeter (1942), 241 Wis. 600, 602, 6 N.W.2d 662. So, too, in Gaspord v. Hecht (1961), 13 Wis.2d 83, 87, 108 N.W.2d 137, we noted the dignity that must be accorded to ......
-
Bailey v. Zwirowski
...the right of way from maintaining a proper lookout or from using ordinary care in the operation of his car * * *.' Gibson v. Streeter, 241 Wis. 600, 6 N.W.2d 662, 663. It is contended by plaintiff that in ordering a new trial the court should have limited the issues. In his memorandum opini......
-
Gross v. Gross, 9454.
...situations are Hansen v. Storandt, 231 Wis. 63, 285 N.W. 370; Grasser v. Anderson, 224 Wis. 654, 273 N.W. 63, and Gibson v. Streeter, 241 Wis. 600, 6 N.W.2d 662, relied upon by In the Hansen case, the court discussed two provisions of the Wisconsin statute as to the right of way of parties ......