Hiddessen v. Kuehn
| Citation | 254 Wis. 214,36 N.W.2d 82 |
| Parties | HIDDESSEN v. KUEHN et al. |
| Decision Date | 15 February 1949 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County; Herman W. Sachtjen, Circuit Judge.
Action by Norman C. Hiddessen against Lawrence H. Kuehn and another for damages sustained in a collision between plaintiff's automobile and an automobile owned and operated by defendant Kuehn, who filed a counterclaim for damages sustained as the result of plaintiff's alleged negligence in operating his automobile. From a judgment for defendant Kuehn on a jury's special verdict, plaintiff appeals.-[By Editorial Staff.]
Reversed and remanded with directions.In an action brought by Norman Hiddessen against Lawrence H. Kuehn, he filed a counterclaim to recover damages which he alleged he sustained as the result of Hiddessen's negligence in operating an automobile which collided with Kuehn's automobile. In reply to the counterclaim Hiddessen denied the allegations as to negligence on his part. On a trial the jury returned a special verdict upon which the court entered judgment for Kuehn's recovery of damages from Hiddessen. He appealed from the judgment.
The case was tried wholly on the counterclaim, as if the defendant were the plaintiff.
Schubring, Ryan, Petersen & Sutherland, of Madison, for appellant.
Lee & Becker, of Madison, for respondent.
The cars operated by Hiddessen and Kuehn, respectively, collided between 5 and 6 P.M. on July 10, 1946 on a highway running east and west, with a 23 foot wide black top surface and wide gravel and grass shoulders north and south of the roadway. The cars collided at the place where there was a private driveway extending from the north side of the highway to Kuehn's home. As Kuehn was driving eastward on the highway, the view to the east along the highway from some distance west of the center of the highway opposite the driveway was such that the top of a west-bound automobile could be seen all of the time while it was within 800 feet to the east, and all of the car could be seen while it was 600 feet to the east of the driveway. To the west of the driveway the highway sloped gradually for about 600 feet, during which there is no obstruction to the view eastward.
Kuehn testified that as he was driving eastward on the south half of the black top roadway and was opposite the entrance to his driveway, he stopped at his mail box, which was on the south side of the highway; from that point he looked to the east and saw no automobile coming toward him; that he then lowered his side window and looked back to the west, and then shifted into low gear and drove into his driveway with a quick and sharp turn because he knew it was kind of a dangerous place to turn in; that when the rear wheels of his car were just leaving the north half of the black top roadway, his car was hit on the right side by Hiddessen's car, which was going westward; and that he did not see the Hiddessen car at any time until it was four feet away and about to hit him.
On the other hand, Hiddessen testified that as he was driving west on the black top roadway at 45 to 50 miles an hour and his car was on top of the knoll (which is 600 feet east of Kuehn's driveway), he saw Kuehn's car about 150 feet west of the driveway and traveling east on the south side of the highway; that Hiddessen kept on going down the grade at 45 to 50 miles per hour as the Kuehn car was coming toward him; the car was in his vision and he saw it all the time as he drove closer; that when Hiddessen's car came to a point a little east of the driveway the Kuehn car suddenly made a short angled turn left at the driveway without stopping; that just before Kuehn started the sudden turn he was still on his right hand side of the highway and traveling toward Hiddessen; that Hiddessen, to avoid hitting the Kuehn car, put on his brakes and turned right off onto the north shoulder and when his car was about 60 feet east of the driveway it went off the shoulder and then into and through a shallow ditch and struck the right rear side of the Keuhn car at a culvert in his driveway; and that Hiddessen had no control of his car when it went into the ditch and collided with the Kuehn car.
A traffic officer who took measurements testified a skid mark of Hiddessen's car began one foot south of the north edge of the black top and 59 feet east of the west end of a 15 foot long culvert in the driveway; that, upon Hiddessen's car colliding with the right rear side of Kuehn's car the latter rolled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reuhl v. Uszler
...152, 252 N.W. 680; Saley v. Hardware Mut. Casualty Co., 1945, 246 Wis. 647, 18 N.W.2d 342; Quinn v. Hartmann, supra; Hiddessen v. Kuehn, 1949, 254 Wis. 214, 36 N.W.2d 82, which hold that when a sudden obstruction is placed in a driver's lane of traffic, the driver's negligence, if any exist......
-
Reuhl v. Uszler
...252 N.W. 680;Saley v. Hardware Mut. Casualty Co., 1945, 246 Wis. 647, 18 N.W.2d 342; Quinn v. Hartmann, supra; Hiddessen v. Kuehn, 1949, 254 Wis. 214, 36 N.W.2d 82, which hold that when a sudden obstruction is placed in a driver's lane of traffic, the driver's negligence, if any exists, is ......
- Borchers v. Borchers
-
Mezera v. Pahmeier
...brought him onto the wrong side of the highway.' The facts in this case are very similar to the facts in the case of Hiddessen v. Kuehn, 254 Wis. 214, 36 N.W.2d 82, 84. In that case the court said: 'However, the jury's finding that Hiddessen was negligent in respect to speed cannot be susta......