Hansen v. Storandt

Decision Date11 April 1939
Citation285 N.W. 370,231 Wis. 63
PartiesHANSEN v. STORANDT et al.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Separate Appeals from portions of a judgment of the Circuit Court for La Crosse County; R. S. Cowie, Judge.

Judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant Storandt affirmed; judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant Wittmer reversed, with directions; judgment in favor of defendant Wittmer against defendant Storandt modified and affirmed.

This was an action by Margaret Hansen, an infant, by Peter Hansen, guardian ad litem, plaintiff, against F. W. Storandt and Milwaukee Automobile Insurance Company, Ltd., Mutual, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a corporation, defendants, commenced on November 18, 1937, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in the collision between a car driven by Storandt and one driven by William Wittmer in which plaintiff was a guest. Defendants impleaded Wittmer and American Automobile Insurance Company, a corporation, as defendants, and filed an answer and cross-complaint. The action was tried to the court and a jury and a special verdict returned. The jury found defendant Storandt negligent with respect to keeping a proper lookout and “with respect to making a lefthand turn under conditions then existing.” Storandt was found not to have been negligent in making a left turn without signal. The two items of negligence were found to have been causes of the collision. Wittmer was found negligent as to lookout and this was found to be a cause of the collision. He was found not to have been negligent as to speed or in respect to management and control. The jury found plaintiff not guilty of contributory negligence. Storandt's negligence was appraised at sixty percent and that of Wittmer at forty per cent of all of the negligence involved. Apart from medical and hospital expenses concerning which there is no question, plaintiff's damages were fixed at $3,750. The jury also assessed the damages to the two automobiles at sums which are not in dispute. Judgment was entered upon the verdict on June 6th, 1938, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, and in favor of defendant Wittmer for diminished damages on his cross-complaint. Wittmer and his insurer appeal from such parts of the judgment as are adverse to them; Storandt and his insurer appeal from such parts of the judgment as are adverse to them. The material facts will be stated in the opinion.Hale & Skemp, of La Crosse, for appellants Storandt et al.

Higbee & Higbee and Robert D. Johns, all of La Crosse, for impleaded defendants and appellants Wittmer et al.

Schubert & Stevenson, of La Crosse, for respondent Hansen.

WICKHEM, Justice.

The accident here involved occurred near the village of West Salem at the junction of state trunk highway 16 and county trunk C. At the point of collision highway 16, a concrete road, runs in a generally northeasterly-southwesterly direction. County trunk C runs north from the village of West Salem, and looking north the junction is in the shape of an inverted Y with the state trunk highway forming the northerly stem and the western fork of this Y. At about 8 o'clock P. M. on September 3rd, 1937, Storandt and a boy companion were returning from a fishing trip to their home in West Salem. They were proceeding south on highway 16 and approaching the junction where the accident happened. At the same time Wittmer, who was accompanied by plaintiff, was driving north on the state trunk highway and approaching the junction. Storandt turned to the left to enter county trunk C, and was struck by the Wittmer car as he entered the east half of the roadway. The front portion of the Wittmer car struck the front right side of the Storandt car.

[1] It is Storandt's contention that he was proceeding slowly and carefully; that he put out his left hand as a signal for a left turn; that the Wittmer car was a sufficient distance away so that he had reasonable grounds to believe that he had time to pass and that Wittmer would be able to see and respect his signal; that Wittmer was in fact going at a very high rate of speed and failing to keep a proper lookout for the reason that his attention was centered upon a car proceeding north on highway C and which would or might be in competition with him for the intersection or junction. Wittmer's claim is that he was proceeding at a moderate rate of speed and keeping a proper lookout; that he saw the Storandt car and the car approaching on the county trunk highway, but that Storandt gave no signal or evidence of his intention to turn until immediately before he actually did turn, and that he made such a sudden invasion of Wittmer's path that the latter was unable to stop his car or otherwise avoid the collision. The jury found that Storandt had given the signal of his intention to turn; it found, however, that he was negligent with respect to making his left turn under the conditions then existing, which means that he did not afford Wittmer a reasonableopportunity to avoid the collision because he turned too abruptly into the path of the latter's car. While the jury exonerated Wittmer as to speed and management, it found that he failed to keep a proper lookout, and it is a fair conclusion from the record that the jury was of the view that Wittmer had been giving too much of his attention to the car approaching from his right from along highway C and that he did not maintain such a lookout as would be effective to discover the left turn signal.

With respect to Storandt, the evidence presents a jury question, and the findings cannot be disturbed. The jury believed Storandt's testimony as to giving a signal for a left turn, but concluded that he had turned too abruptly and had failed to afford Wittmer a reasonable opportunity to avoid the collision. The applicable statutes are sections 85.18 (1) and 85.18 (5). These read as follows:

Sec. 85.18 (1) “The driver of a vehicle approaching but not having entered an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle within such intersection and turning therein to the left across the line of travel of such first mentioned vehicle; provided, the driver of the vehicle turning left has given a plainly visible signal of intention to turn as aforesaid.”

Sec. 85.18 (5) “The operator of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left across the path of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction, may make such left turn where it is permitted only after affording a reasonable opportunity to the operator of such vehicle to avoid a collision.”

[2][3] These are not alternative in operation. Sec. 85.18 (1), Stats., gives the right of way to the driver who is making a left turn only if the latter gives a plainly visible signal of intention to turn. Sec....

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Dickman v. Schaeffer
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1960
    ... ... Dinger v. McCoy Transportation Co., 1949, 254 Wis. 447, 37 N.W.2d 26; Hansen v. Storandt, 1939, 231 ... Wis. 63, 285 N.W. 370; Schultz v. Miller, 1951, 259 Wis. 316, 48 N.W.2d 477 ...         The jury could ... ...
  • Schultz v. Miller
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1951
    ...This is not a case where the driver failed to see that which was already in sight, as contended by appellants. Hansen v. Storandt, 1939, 231 Wis. 63, 67-70, 285 N.W. 370, and Lurie v. Nickel, 1940, 233 Wis. 420, 424, 289 N.W. 686, construe the statutes here involved. Hansen sustained injuri......
  • Robinson v. Krenn
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1940
    ...defendant's failure to keep a better lookout cannot be held to have contributed in causing the accident (citing Hansen v. Storandt, 231 Wis. 63, 285 N.W. 370, and Koperski v. Hoeft, 179 Wis. 281, 191 N.W. 571); and that because plaintiff turned abruptly to cross in front of defendant's onco......
  • Maccaux v. Princl
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 4, 1958
    ...he should have done so was for the jury to determine. See Schultz v. Miller, 1951, 259 Wis. 316, 48 N.W.2d 477; Hansen v. Storandt, 1939, 231 Wis. 63, 285 N.W. 370; Koperski v. Hoeft, 1923, 179 Wis. 281, 191 N.W. 571. In Hansen v. Storandt, supra, 231 Wis. at page 69, 285 N.W. at page 373, ......
  • 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