Ide v. Wamser

• Decision Date: 04 February 1964
• Citation: Ide v. Wamser, 22 Wis.2d 325, 126 N.W.2d 59 (Wis. 1964)
• Parties: Hollis E. IDE et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Eugene Richard WAMSER et al., Appellants, Guy H. Ide et al., Interpleaded Defendants-Respondents. Guy Henry IDE, Respondent, v. Eugene Richard WAMSER et al., Appellants.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 59

126 N.W.2d 59

22 Wis.2d 325

Hollis E. IDE et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Eugene Richard WAMSER et al., Appellants, Guy H. Ide et al., Interpleaded Defendants-Respondents.

Guy Henry IDE, Respondent, v. Eugene Richard WAMSER et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 4, 1964.

John W. Emmerling, Milwaukee, for appellant.

Mount & Keck, Milwaukee, for Hollis Ide.

Bernstein, Wessel, Weitzen & Lewis, Milwaukee, for Guy Ide.

GORDON, Justice.

Negligence as a Matter of Law.

Upon defendant Wamser's appeal we are urged to hold that Guy Ide was at least 50 percent negligent by reason of his defective lookout and his failure to yield the right-of-way. In support of this contention, the defendant Wamser points to our recent decision in Schlueter v. Grady (1963), 20 Wis.2d 546, 123 N.W.2d 458, where we held that one entering upon an arterial highway may be held negligent as a matter of law in a degree equal to or in excess of a driver who is already traveling on the arterial highway. See also Plog v. Zolper (1957), 1 Wis.2d 517, 85 N.W.2d 492; Gumm v. Koepke (1938), 227 Wis. 635, 278 N.W. 447.

Ordinarily, a comparison of negligence is for the jury. Vidakovic v. Campbell (1956), 274 Wis. 168, 175, 79 N.W.2d 806. The jury's findings which have the approval of the trial court will not be disturbed if there is any credible evidence to support such findings. Springen v. Ager Plumbing & Heating, Inc. (1963), 19 Wis.2d 487, 489, 120 N.W.2d 692. However, there is authority which recognizes the special dignity which is afforded to one who is traveling upon an arterial. In order to expedite traffic, the law permits drivers on arterial highways to proceed uninterruptedly at a lawful rate of speed with the assumption that other drivers approaching the arterial will yield to them. LaFrance, Law of Right of Way, 25 Wisconsin Bar Bulletin (Feb. 1952), 11, 14-15.

Notwithstanding the policy considerations which operate in favor of a driver on an arterial highway, it remains the responsibility of such driver to exercise reasonable care. In the instant case, there was evidence from which the jury could infer that Wamser was proceeding too fast for the conditions which prevailed. The intersection in question was regulated by flashing signals, pursuant to sec. 346.39, Stats. We believe that the legislature intended to impose upon an arterial driver approaching a flashing yellow light a somewhat added caution than that governing other arterial highways.

The jury attributed 54 percent of the negligence to Wamser for his negligence as to speed and management and control. In view of the condition of darkness, the presence of wet streets, the testimony as to his excessive speed and the presence of a flashing yellow light, we conclude that the jury's assessments, which were sustained by the trial court, as to relative negligence must be affirmed.

Proximate Cause.

The defendants also urge that the accident had nothing to do with Mrs. Ide's death, or, in the alternative, that her death was so remote in relation to the accident that the court must deny liability upon the defendants because of considerations of public policy. Pfeifer v. Standard Gateway Theater, Inc. (1952), 262 Wis. 229, 240, 55 N.W.2d 29.

There was conflicting medical testimony on the subject of the cause of Mrs. Ide's death. Mrs. Ide was eighty years of age and died sixty-nine days after the accident. Because of her pre-existing illnesses, the defendants' medical experts concluded that there was no causal connection between the accident and her demise. In our opinion, the evidence raised a jury question as to the cause of death, and the finding that there was a causal relationship is amply supported by the evidence.

On the issue of remoteness, the mere passage of sixty-nine days between the accident and the death does not warrant our excluding liability for reasons of public policy. We are not shocked to find that the jury believed that there was a causal connection between the accident and the resulting death, and we decline to apply the doctrine of Pfeifer v. Standard Gateway Theater, Inc., supra. See Colla v. Mandella (1957), 1 Wis.2d 594, 600, 85 N.W.2d 345, 64 A.L.R.2d 95.

Jury Instructions.

In the course of his instructions relative to damages, the trial judge referred to Mrs. Ide's...