Helgoe v. Bade

• Decision Date: 04 March 1930
• Citation: 229 N.W. 541,201 Wis. 193
• Parties: HELGOE v. BADE. STOLL v. BADE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

201 Wis. 193

229 N.W. 541

HELGOE

v.BADE.

STOLL

v.BADE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 4, 1930.

Appeals from judgments of the Circuit Court for Buffalo County; George Thompson, Circuit Judge.

Actions by Oscar Helgoe against Oscar Bade and by Floyd Stoll against same defendant. Judgments for the plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Judgments affirmed.

Two actions, commenced January 8, 1929; judgments for plaintiff entered July 22, 1929. Defendant appeals.

The actions are by the driver of an automobile and a man riding with him to recover for injuries sustained in a collision between their car, a Ford, and the Chevrolet car of the defendant alleged to have been caused by negligence of the defendant in suddenly starting up his car which was parked by the roadside and heading into the car of plaintiff as plaintiffs were passing. The accident occurred on the outskirts of a small unincorporated village, and residences face the road for six hundred feet as plaintiff approached the place of the accident. The accident occurred at 9:30 in the morning on a bright day. There was no other traffic. Other facts, as far as they bear upon the determination of the case, are stated in the opinion.

The jury found that the defendant was negligent in operating his car and as to keeping a lookout, and that his such negligence caused the collision. A question was put whether the defendant was negligent in not signaling, but the jury answered that ordinary care did not require him to signal. They found the plaintiff driver was not negligent as to lookout, signaling or speed and that the passenger was not negligent as to lookout or otherwise. The driver's damages were assessed at $2,200 and the passenger's at $10,000.Buehler & Buehler, of Alma (Bundlie & Kelley, of St. Paul, Minn., of counsel), for appellant.

James J. Gleeson, of Alma, and Quincy H. Hale, of La Crosse, for respondents.

FOWLER, J.

No errors relating to the findings of the jury upon the questions of negligence are claimed by appellant, except those involved under his contentions that the defendant was not guilty of negligence as matter of law; that Stoll was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law; that Helgoe was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law; and that, if Helgoe was not guilty he was not a guest but on a joint enterprise with Stoll and Stoll's negligence is imputable to him. The last point need not be considered if Stoll was not negligent.

The defendant's automobile was parked on the right side of the road in front of a cheese factory, partly within and partly without the highway, where he had left it while unloading a can of milk. The defendant had emptied his milk and replaced the empty can in his car. He claims that he looked to his left as he returned to the car, looked again after passing in front of his car and again after shutting the rear door after putting in the empty can, and that he did not see the other car approaching. He claims to have looked to the left and right just before starting his car, but not through the back window. From the testimony of Stoll and other evidence, it appears without dispute or might reasonably be inferred that Stoll, the driver of the Ford, was approaching from behind defendant's car driving about the middle of a three-rod road eighteen feet wide in the graveled part. He saw the defendant's car standing still, facing towards the center of the road at a slight angle. As he came close to the parked car, the defendant suddenly shot into him. Stoll had come around a turn in the road three hundred seventy feet to the rear of the parked car, slacking his speed to ten miles an hour at the turn. He had increased his speed to fifteen or twenty miles an hour by the time he reached defendant's car. The front of his car struck and followed the running board of defendant's car. His right front wheel apparently jumped and struck on top of the rising part of defendant's left front fender, and plaintiff's car tipped over. The defendant on starting his car turned it towards the left. He started up so suddenly and fast that the rear wheels threw up gravel. As the plaintiffs approached, they noticed some men working on the roof of a house near the place of accident and exchanged salutations with them without stopping.

[1][2] It is strenuously urged by appellant's counsel that the fact that a tire mark and dent on the upper surface of the slanting portion of defendant's front fender made at the time of the collision demonstrates that the collision could not have occurred as Stoll claims. That...