Maccaux v. Princl

• Decision Date: 04 February 1958
• Citation: 87 N.W.2d 772,3 Wis.2d 44
• Parties: Lucy MACCAUX et al., Appellants, v. Arnold E. PRINCL et al., Respondents, Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, Interpleaded Defendant and Respondent (Five consolidated cases).
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 772

87 N.W.2d 772

3 Wis.2d 44

Lucy MACCAUX et al., Appellants, v. Arnold E. PRINCL et al., Respondents Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, Interpleaded Defendant and Respondent (Five consolidated cases).

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 4, 1958.

Evrard, Evrard, Duffy, Holman & Faulds, Green Bay, for appellants Lucy Maccaux and Herman Mut. Ins. Co.

Kaftan, Kaftan & Kaftan, Green Bay, for appellants Cream City Mut. Ins. Co., Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Underwriters Ins. Co., and Allen J. Wickenberg.

Everson, Ryan, Whitney & O'Melia, Green Bay, for respondent Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N. Y.

Welsh, Trowbridge, Bills, Planert & Gould, Green Bay, and Murphy & Brady, Manitowoc, for respondents Princl and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

MARTIN, Chief Justice.

The accident occurred in the town of Preble just outside the city of Green Bay, on Main Boulevard at the intersection of Schoen Street. Main Boulevard, paved and with curbs, is 46 feet wide in the area in question. It runs north and south and the intersection referred to is a Y formed by Schoen Street, running northeast and southwest, meeting Main Boulevard on the west. Located about 50 feet from the east side of Main Boulevard, opposite the intersection, is the Maccaux Tavern; a driveway to the east from Main Boulevard is located just south of the tavern. Another wider driveway leading to the tavern is located a short distance to the north.

At about 9:30 a. m. on April 13, 1955 Princl was driving his vehicle north on Main Boulevard approaching the intersection. The trailer, a gasoline tank, was fully loaded; the entire vehicle weighed about 57,000 pounds and was 40 feet in overall length. Rain had fallen but at the time of the accident it was not raining. A mist or fog in the air made it necessary for Princl to use his windshield wipers, but there was no appreciable obstruction to visibility. The pavement was wet.

It was Princl's testimony that he was traveling 35 miles per hour as he approached the intersection, the speed limit in that area, and when he was a distance of about two blocks south of the first driveway he saw another vehicle approaching from the north at a point about a block and a half north of the intersection. He watched the car until it appeared to him to be turning southwest into Schoen Street, then glanced down at his speedometer. When he looked up, the other car was directly in front of him, not more than four feet away. Princl blew his horn, yanked his steering wheel to the right and applied his brakes hard in an attempt to avoid hitting the car by entering the tavern driveway. The other car, referred to as an old Chevrolet, was not hit but proceeded north on Main Boulevard. Princl testified the front wheels of his tractor went into the driveway, the rear wheels hit the curbing just north of the driveway, his trailer jackknifed and he lost control of his vehicle, with the result that it ran into the front of the tavern, causing the property damage for which recovery is sought.

Questions with respect to Princl's negligence as to speed, lookout and management and control were all answered in the negative by the jury. The findings were approved by the trial court. The only question raised on appeal is whether Princl was negligent with respect to lookout as a matter of law.

On a scale diagram of the area Princl located a point A, in the center of the east lane of Main Boulevard just opposite the south driveway, to indicate the position of the other car in front of him as he looked up from the speedometer. He located another point, B, in the west lane of Main Boulevard where it is intersected by Schoen Street, to indicate the position of the car where he last saw it before glancing at the speedometer. The distance between these two points, according to the scale of the diagram, is 60 feet. Princl estimated the speed of the other car at about 20 miles per hour when he first saw it; his own was 30 to 35 miles per hour.

Appellants contend that the positions A and B are firmly and precisely established. They calculate that from the distance of 60 feet between them, the Chevrolet must have followed a curve of some 90 feet in going from B to A and at 20 miles per hour it traversed that distance in three seconds; that Princl, at 35 miles per hour, traveled 157 1/2 feet during those three seconds, a distance in which he could have stopped his vehicle had he maintained a lookout and observed the Chevrolet making the turn into his path.

These conclusions cannot be made as a matter of law. While the evidence may be susceptible of the computations and conclusions deduced by the appellants, this court must adhere to the rule that 'when a jury's findings are attacked, particularly when they have had the trial court's approval, our inquiry is limited to the issue whether there is any credible evidence that, under any reasonable view, supports such findings.' Olson v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co., 1954, 266 Wis. 106, 109, 62 N.W.2d 549, 551, 63 N.W.2d 740. Had the jury found...