Langworthy v. Reisinger

• Decision Date: 22 June 1946
• Citation: 249 Wis. 24,23 N.W.2d 482
• Parties: LANGWORTHY v. REISINGER et al.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

249 Wis. 24

23 N.W.2d 482

LANGWORTHY

v.REISINGER et al.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 22, 1946.

Appeal from a judgment entered in the Circuit Court for Rock County; Jesse Earle, Judge.

Reversed.Action for damages commenced February 5, 1944, by Minnie Langworthy against Clifford Reisinger and Northwestern National Casualty company. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal.

The controversy arises out of a collision of defendant Reisinger's car with Minnie Langworthy on Broad street in the city of Beloit.

The case was tried to the court and jury and in a special verdict, the jury found defendant Reisinger causally negligent as to lookout, speed and management and control; found the plaintiff causally negligent as to lookout and failure to yield the right of way. It apportioned eighty percent of the causal negligence to defendant and twenty percent to plaintiff. Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, to change answers in the special verdict, and in the alternative for a new trial, were overruled and judgment on the verdict was entered.

McGowan & Geffs, of Janesville, for appellants.

Arnold, Caskey & Robson, of Beloit, for respondent.

FAIRCHILD, Justice.

The record discloses that the collision occurred on Saturday, August 14, 1943, early in the evening. Broad street on which the collision occurred, runs cast and west and is intersected by Pleasant street running north and south. Provision has been made for parking in the center of that part of Broad street west of Pleasant street. The north lane of Broad street is twenty-two feet wide and traffic moves thereon only in a westerly direction. Respondent had purchased some groceries on Broad street at a store east of the intersection with Pleasant street. In returning to her automobile she crossed Pleasant street, walked west on Broad street about fifty-two feet and then crossed to her parked car which was in the fourth parking space from the intersection. She was not crossing at a marked or unmarked cross walk. Somewhere between the curb and the center of the street, she was struck by appellant Reisinger's automobile proceeding west on Broad street.

The appellant contends that the trial court was in error in entering judgment on the jury's verdict because (1) there is insufficient credible evidence to sustain the finding of negligence on the part of appellant in respect to lookout, speed and control and management and (2) as a matter of law the respondent was at least as negligent as the appellant.

Appellant testified that he was travelling west on Broad street; that he stopped at the intersection with Pleasant Street in order to let an automobile pass in front of him; that he then proceeded west. The sun was in his eyes and he was watching the cars parked in the center of the street to guard against anyone backing into the lane of traffic. He did not see respondent at any time before the collision. He also testified that he was travelling fifteen miles per hour and stopped within approximately twelve feet after the impact and that he did not believe the impact caused the car to slow down any. The only other testimony as to the speed of the car was given by a witness who was walking east on the sidewalk on the north side of Broad street and who saw the appellant's car just before it struck respondent. He estimated the speed of the car at twenty miles an hour or more. But he also testified that the car travelled between six and eight feet after the impact. The investigating police officer estimated the speed of the car as between fifteen and twenty miles per hour. There is also a dispute as to the exact spot at which the collision occurred. Appellant testified that he was proceeding closer to the middle of the street and the parked cars than to the curb, that when he got out of his car after the accident he was six to eight feet from the north curb and plaintiff was three to four feet from the curb. Respondent testified that she was at least one-half way across the twenty-two foot lane when she was struck.

It...