Jankovich v. Arens
| Decision Date | 07 October 1952 |
| Citation | 54 N.W.2d 909,262 Wis. 210 |
| Parties | JANKOVICH, v. ARENS et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Action for damages by plaintiff Frank Jankovich against defendants John A. Arens and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company for personal injuries sustained when he was struck by the automobile driven by defendant Arens.
The accident occurred at the intersection of South Eighth street and Alabama avenue in the city of Sheboygan at about 9 o'clock p. m. on September 15, 1950. South Eighth street, a concrete pavement forty-eight feet wide, intersects Alabama avenue at a right angle. There is a six-foot wide marked crosswalk extending east and west on the north side of the intersection.
Defendant Arens drove his automobile north on South Eighth street and struck the plaintiff, who was walking east across South Eighth street, causing the injuries of which plaintiff complains.
The court found both plaintiff and defendant causally negligent as to lookout. The jury found defendant Arens causally negligent in failing to yield the right of way, but found plaintiff not negligent in that respect. From a judgment for plaintiff on the verdict, defendants appeal. Further facts will be stated in the opinion.
Bassuener, Humke, Poole & Axel, Sheboygan, for appellants.
Gruhle, Fessler & Wilkus, Sheboygan, for respondent.
Two questions are presented by appellants: Whether credible evidence supports the jury's finding (1) that respondent was in the crosswalk when struck by Arens' car, and (2) that appellant Arens was ninety per cent and respondent ten per cent negligent.
We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that there is sufficient credible evidence to sustain the finding that respondent was in the crosswalk and that thus appellant was negligent in failing to yield the right of way to the pedestrian.
The evidence was conflicting and it was for the jury to decide which testimony it would believe.
Respondent left his place of employment at 8:30 p. m. and proceeded home on the bus. He alighted from the bus on the northwest corner of the intersection in question, his home being located on the east side of South Eighth street about 110 feet north of the intersection. On an adverse examination of the respondent taken at the hospital about six months after the accident, he testified that he left the bus at the rear door and started to cross the street directly from the point where he alighted. On the trial he stated that he did not know which door he got out, but that he did walk south after leaving the bus and proceeded across the street on the crosswalk; that Mrs. Wilma Gedig, a neighbor whom he knew and who had left the bus at the same time, was about three or four feet behind him as he crossed the street. He did not see Arens' car until it struck him.
In Henry v. La Grou, 1929, 200 Wis. 110, 115, 227 N.W. 246, 247, where plaintiff did not mention in an earlier statement that his automobile had become stalled on the street car tracks immediately before it was struck by the street car, and subsequently testified to such fact upon the trial, the court said:
'* * * even though plaintiff then omitted to state that essential fact, or other facts, or made other statements inconsistent, or in conflict with his subsequent testimony under oath, the question of his credibility was nevertheless for the jury (Dolphin v. Peacock M. Co., 155 Wis. 439, 448, 144 N.W. 1112), and would have been so, even if such omissions or former statements had been made during the course of an examination, under oath, in some judicial proceeding, (Sparling v. United States Sugar Co., 136 Wis. 509, 117 N.W. 1055; Halamka v. Schneider, 197 Wis. 538, 222 N.W. 821).'
Mrs Gedig testified that she saw respondent seated on the bus directly behind the driver; that he got out the front door and she left by the rear door. They stood together on the sidewalk and talked until the bus left the corner; then they started to cross the street, respondent walking beside her, both of them within the crosswalk. As she neared the center line of the street she noticed a car coming from the south and decided to wait for it to pass.
'* * * I looked towards the north again, then looked towards the south to see where the car...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burlison v. Janssen
...576.6 Milwaukee & S. T. Corp. v. Royal Transit Co. (1966), 29 Wis.2d 620, 631, 139 N.W.2d 595, 601, quoting from Jankovich v. Arens (1952), 262 Wis. 210, 215, 54 N.W.2d 909. ...
-
Gilson v. Drees Bros.
...is 'peculiarly within the jury's province.' Bailey v. Bach (1950), 257 Wis. 604, 609, 44 N.W.2d 631. See also Jankovich v. Arens (1952), 262 Wis. 210, 215, 54 N.W.2d 909. In Davis v. Skille (1961), 12 Wis.2d 482, 489, 107 N.W.2d 458, 462, it was 'While this court has in a number of cases de......
-
Bruno v. Biesecker
...34 Wis.2d 705, 150 N.W.2d 460; Raszeja v. Brozek Heating & Sheet Metal Corp. (1964), 25 Wis.2d 337, 130 N.W.2d 855; Jankovich v. Arens (1952), 262 Wis. 210, 54 N.W.2d 909. ...
-
Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp. v. Royal Transit Co.
...(1952), 262 Wis. 174, 180, 54 N.W.2d 200, 203; Hibner v. Lindauer (1963), 18 Wis.2d 451, 456, 118 N.W.2d 873.15 Jankovich v. Arens (1952), 262 Wis. 210, 215, 54 N.W.2d 909, 911. ...