Held v. Draeger

Decision Date06 November 1951
Citation49 N.W.2d 750,260 Wis. 70
PartiesHELD et al. v. DRAEGER et al.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

Action by Herman Held and his son Paul Held against Reinhard Draeger and his automobile liability insurer. Upon a trial of the issues under pleadings and evidence the jury returned a special verdict and upon the findings are approved by the court, judgment was entered for the recovery from defendants of $830 by Herman Held and $2475 by Paul Held. Defendants appealed from the judgment.

Smith, Okoneski, Puchner & Tinkham, Wausau, for appellants.

Krueger & Fulmer, Wausau, for respondents.

FRITZ, Chief Justice.

Appeal by the defendants, Reinhard Draeger and his automobile liability insurer, from a judgment against them for Paul Held's recovery of $2,475 as damages for his personal injuries and damages to his motorcycle; and for his father, Herman Held's recovery of $830 as damages sustained by him for his payments of hospital and medical expenses, and the loss of Paul Held's services, as the result of Draeger's negligent operation of his automobile, which collided with Paul Held's motorcycle. The collision occurred on July 13, 1949, at 5:45 P.M., on a 20 to 22 feet wide graveled and travelled portion of a town road extending east and west, on the northerly portion of which Draeger was driving his automobile westward as he approached the place where Paul Held drove his motorcycle southward on an 18 feet wide private farm driveway which ran to the north edge of the town road. Paul Held testified that as he approached the town road from the north, he stopped his motorcycle 3 feet north of the north edge of the graveled portion of the road and looked eastward over 500 feet along the town road but saw no automobile approaching. There was proof by testimony and photographs that from the point where Paul Held stopped on the driveway neither he nor his motorcycle were hidden from the view of a driver of an automobile going westward along the road, and that although there were some trees along the north side of the road, they were 14 to 18 feet north of the edge of the travelled portion of the road, and that for 500 feet east of the driveway Paul and his motorcycle could be seen.

Herman Held and his sons, Paul and Oscar, had worked on that farm until about 5:25 P.M., and then Herman Held and Oscar proceeded to return to their home, which was some distance east of the private driveway.

Shortly before Paul Held drove on the private driveway up to 3 or 4 feet of the town road, Herman Held and Oscar rode on an open stake platform body truck southward on the driveway to the town road, and then proceeded eastward on the south half of that road. Oscar Held testified that from his vantage point on the rear platform of the truck he saw Paul stop on the driveway. Herman Held testified that about 360 feet easterly of the driveway there is an intersection with another road, and that when he got to a point on the town road about 390 to 400 feet easterly of the private driveway, he met Draeger's automobile driven in a westerly direction on the town road at 65 to 70 miles per hour.

Paul Held testified that when he stopped on the driveway he saw Draeger's automobile approaching from the east, a little east of his father's truck, which would be 385 to 400 feet east of the driveway, but that he could not observe its precise speed, and that he assumed it was not proceeding fast because of the intersection, because of meeting a vehicle, and because of the size and condition of the town road; and that he then proceeded south on the driveway on to the town road and crossed the center on to the south half, and turned easterly and proceeded in an easterly or southeasterly direction until he was 3 to 4 feet northerly from the south edge of that road, and 20 feet east of the east edge of the driveway, and was there struck by Draeger's automobile.

Draeger testified he was going only about 45 miles per hour just before the collision. Herman Held and Rudy Haderlein, who arrived shortly after the collision, testified that Draeger's automobile left skid marks 146 feet in length on the road leading back easterly from the point of the collision; and Haderlein testified the skid marks started on the north side of the road and curved over onto the south half, and ended at a point where they were met by the motorcycle tracks 3 or 4 feet from the south edge of the town road.

After the collision Draeger's automobile came to a stop about 15 to 20 feet west of the driveway, and the motorcycle was thrown 20 feet west of where the automobile came to rest. The distance it travelled after the collision was about 50 to 60 feet, depending upon which testimony is believed.

Paul Held testified that when he saw Draeger's automobile come into the intersection, which was around 375 feet east of him, he could not tell whether it was coming fast or slow; that he did look to see, and it did not seem to come fast, but he saw it coming kind of slow; and that he himself did not stay stopped but started right out; and stopped there for a few seconds and he didn't know if it was a minute he stayed stopped.

On the other hand, Draeger testified that when he passed the truck near the intersection east of where the accident happened, he was going about 45 miles per hour; that after he passed that truck he continued on on the north side for a little ways and then started turning towards the center; that he did not ever get to the center of the road before the scene of the accident or until just at the accident; that he knew there was a driveway coming out of that farm house and was looking ahead as he passed the truck and from there on up to the scene of the accident; that the view looking to his right from the town road to any part of that driveway is pretty near impossible to see in, and he did not see a motorcycle at any time before it got out on to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Krause v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 25 Noviembre 1969
    ...and a guest's knowledge of it. London & Lancashire Ind. Co. v. Phoenix Ind. Co. (1953), 263 Wis. 171, 56 N.W.2d 777; Held v. Draeger (1951), 260 Wis. 70, 49 N.W.2d 750; Canzoneri v. Heckert (1936), 223 Wis. 25, 269 N.W. 716. However, no Wisconsin case has precluded such evidence for the pur......

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