Hoehne v. Mittelstadt
| Decision Date | 17 February 1948 |
| Citation | Hoehne v. Mittelstadt, 252 Wis. 170, 31 N.W.2d 150 (Wis. 1948) |
| Parties | HOEHNE v. MITTELSTADT et al. KOCH v. SAME. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeals from judgments of the Circuit Court for Columbia County; L. J. Fellenz, Judge.
Affirmed.
Consolidated actions by Madeline Hoehne, administratix of the estate of Reuben H. C. Hoehne, deceased, and by Elizabeth Koch, administratrix of the estate of Rudolph Koch, deceased, against Alvin Mittelstadt and others, for wrongful deaths of Reuben H. C. Hoehne and Rudolph Koch, from injuries sustained in an automobile collision. From adverse judgments, plaintiffs appeal.-[By Editorial Staff.]
Judgments affirmed.
Actions to recover damages from the defendant Mittelstadt for the wrongful deaths of Reuben H. C. Hoechne and Rudolph Koch resulting from injuries sustained in a collision between their host's automobile and the automobile of Mittelstadt. The cases were tried to a jury, which found Mittelstadt guilty of negligence with respect to lookout and control. The trial court changed the answers of the jury on these two questions and ordered judgment. From judgments dismissing the actions, the plaintiffs appeal.
After the commencement of the actions, wherein plaintiffs originally sought to recover damages from the defendants Mittelstadt and Olrich and their respective insurance carriers, satisfactory settlements were made by the plaintiffs with the defendant Olrich and his insurer Northwestern National Casualty Company.
The cases against the defendant Mittelstadt were consolidated for trial and submitted together upon this appeal. Upon the trial the jury found Mittelstadt negligent with respect to management and control and with respect to lookout. The answers of the jury to these two questions were changed by the trial court and the complaints ordered dismissed upon their merits.
The plaintiffs contend that there was evidence to support the findings of the jury and that the trial court erred in changing the answers.
Callahan & Arnold, of Columbus, for appellants.
Bendinger, Hayes & Kluwin, of Milwaukee, for respondents.
The decedents and Orlich were all residents of Columbus and were employed at Sun Prairie. On March 25, 1946, at a little before six o'clock a.m. the three left Columbus in Olrich's car, traveling south on U. S. Highway 151.
On the same morning the respondent Mittelstadt, a resident of Beaver Dam, arose early and drove his wife to Madison where she was employed. He and his young son and a hitch-hiker, Frank Konecny, were returning along U. S. Highway 151 in a northerly direction.
The weather was extremely foggy and visibility was bad. As Orlich drove along at about thirty-five to forty miles per hour he overtook a truck proceeding south on Highway 151. In attempting to pass the truck Olrich collided with the Mittelstadt automobile on the east half of the concrete. Appellants' intestates and the son of Mittelstadt all died from injuries sustained. The guest, Konecny, and the two drivers were injured.
The collision occurred to the side and a little to the rear of the truck, which was not involved. The truck...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Hoeft v. Friedel
...speed prior to the emergency and whether that negligence helped create the emergency. Appellants rely primarily on Hoehne v. Mittelstadt (1948), 252 Wis. 170, 31 N.W.2d 150, where, upon similar facts, this court held that an emergency situation existed as a matter of law. However, in that c......
-
Schemenauer v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...534, 22 N.W.2d 596. And, this is so for inaction as well as action. An emergency may exist in a layman's sense, Hoehne v. Mittelstadt (1948), 252 Wis. 170, 31 N.W.2d 150; Roberts v. Knorr (1951), 260 Wis. 288, 50 N.W.2d 374, which requires quick action and thinking upon the part of the driv......
-
Jewell v. Schmidt
...Martin, 1938, 228 Wis. 45, 279 N.W. 699; School v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co., 1940, 234 Wis. 332, 291 N.W. 311; Hoehne v. Mittelstadt, 1947, 252 Wis. 170, 31 N.W.2d 150; Roberts v. Knorr, 1951, 260 Wis. 288, 50 N.W.2d 374; Havens v. Havens, 1954, 266 Wis. 282, 63 N.W.2d 86, 47 A.L.R.2d ......
-
Cook v. Thomas
...534, 22 N.W.2d 596. And, this is so for inaction as well as action. An emergency may exist in a layman's sense, Hoehne v. Mittelstadt (1948), 252 Wis. 170, 31 N.W.2d 150; Roberts v. Knorr (1951), 260 Wis. 288, 50 N.W.2d 374, which requires quick action and thinking upon the part of the driv......