Heinecke v. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1953 |
| Citation | 264 Wis. 89,58 N.W.2d 442 |
| Parties | HEINECKE et al. v. HARDWARE MUT. CAS. CO. et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
John P. McGalloway, Fond du Lac, for appellants.
Kenneth E. Worthing, Fond du Lac, for respondents.
The defendants contend upon this appeal that the claimed acts of negligence by the defendant Anderson were questions of fact for the jury and that there was ample credible evidence to support the findings of the jury. The plaintiffs still insist that Anderson was negligent as a matter of law in respect to lookout and also in respect to failure to yield the right of way. The plaintiffs contend that it was Anderson's duty as a matter of law to look as far as possible down the highway for approaching traffic and that it was possible for him to look a distance of 1,700 feet and that he only looked 800 feet. The plaintiffs also cite the following statute:
They contend that this statute must be literally applied. Such interpretation, of course, would compel a finding that Anderson was negligent as a matter of law in failure to yield the right of way.
The proper determination of this case involves the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle entering a public highway from a private driveway. These duties were defined in the case of Carlson v. Strasser, 239 Wis. 531, 2 N.W.2d 233. In that case a truck, parked parallel with the highway, was driven from a private driveway upon the public highway. In that case the court said, 239 Wis. at pages 535-536, 2 N.W.2d at page 235:
If applied literally, the above statute would lead to absurd results. No driver could enter a public highway from a private driveway if another car was approaching. The statute does not limit the term 'vehicles approaching' to those in sight. The rules laid down in the Carlson case, supra, are standards of ordinary care to be applied by a jury to the facts and circumstances in each case.
Applied to this case, before entering upon the highway it was Anderson's duty to make a proper lookout. It was his duty by such lookout to look a sufficient distance to aascertain that anyone approaching upon the highway at a lawful rate of speed would not interfere with his entering upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cope v. Thompson
...439 S.W.2d 88, 93(6, 7) (Ky.1968); Reed v. Green, 90 Idaho 526, 414 P.2d 445, 448--450(1, 2) (1966); Heinecke v. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co., 264 Wis. 89, 58 N.W.2d 442, 444(2) (1953); Peterson v. Lang, 239 Minn. 319, 58 N.W.2d 609, 612--613(5) (1953); Dwyer v. Christensen, 77 S.D. 381, 92 N.W.2......
-
Johnson v. Bush
...should have seen in the same or similar circumstances, James v. Berry, Mo.App., 301 S.W.2d 530, 533(5); Heinecke v. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co., 264 Wis. 89, 58 N.W.2d 442, 444(3), but the plaintiff was not required to see over hills or around obstacles, Fuzzell v. Williams, Mo.App., 288 S.W.2d ......
-
McDonnell v. Timmerman
...appear in Plog as original with that court, but is indicated there to be taken from the earlier decision in Heinecke v. Hardware Mutual Casualty Co., 1953, 264 Wis. 89, 58 N.W.2d 442. Moreover, counsel fails to indicate that the quotation, as used by Plog, concluded with respect to lookout ......
-
Ogle v. Avina
...of speed and distance may be in error and yet be reasonable and thus not determinative of negligence. Heinecke v. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. (1953), 264 Wis. 89, 94, 58 N.W.2d 442. In Heinecke, we pointed out that one charged with the duty of lookout had to exercise, after making his observatio......