Maus v. Cook
| Decision Date | 29 December 1961 |
| Citation | 112 N.W.2d 589,15 Wis.2d 203 |
| Parties | Jack MAUS, Respondent, v. Clinton E. COOK, Appellant, |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Action to recover damages sustained by plaintiff in a collision between his motor vehicle and that of the defendant. By a special verdict a jury found that each party was causally negligent in the operation of his vehicle. The verdict assessed 40 per cent of the combined causal negligence to the plaintiff and 60 per cent to the defendant. Judgment for plaintiff was entered on the verdict. Defendant appeals.
The facts are given in the opinion.
D. V. W. Beckwith, Madison, for appellant.
Robins, Davis & Lyons, Lawrence Zelle, Minneapolis, Minn., Lorin L. Kay, Richland Center, for respondent.
Appellant's sole contention is that the jury's apportionment of causal negligence is without support in the evidence. Therefore, appellant asks this court to determine as a matter of law that plaintiff's causal negligence was at least equal to that of defendant,--which would compel a reversal of the judgment and dismissal of the complaint,--or that we remand the cause for a new trial to enable another jury to better satisfy appellant in the comparison of the causal negligence of the respective parties.
There is evidence from which the jury could believe and obviously did believe that the accident happened in the following manner:
Defendant Cook, a farmer, driving his Ford automobile, was going west on State Highway 14 approaching his own driveway to his home, located north of the highway. Cook's speed was about 35 miles per hour. Some one-half mile behind Cook came plaintiff Maus driving his own semitrailer, at a speed of approximately 50 miles per hour and, of course, overtaking Cook. When Maus was about 400 feet behind Cook the latter signaled that he intended to make a left turn. He made this signal by extending his left arm horizontally out of his left window. (This is the statutory left-turn signal, sec. 346.35(1)(a), Stats.) Cook then reduced his speed to 15 or 20 miles per hour and drove his car into the south (his left) lane of the highway. Maus reduced his speed to 35 or 40 miles per hour. Cook's deviation left clear the right traffic lane and Maus attempted to continue in it and pass Cook to Cook's right. When the two vehicles had overlapped each other Cook began to come back into the right traffic lane. The sides of the two cars made contact with each other and in the attempt to avoid collision with Cook, Maus went into the ditch at the north side of the road. Personal injury and property damage to Maus resulted.
The accident occurred in daylight. Visibility was good. The pavement was dry. There was no opposing traffic at the times in question.
Although Cook concedes that he gave a left-turn signal he contends that Maus had no right to rely on it or be misled by it because just at that place there was no highway or driveway leading off to the left,--although there was such a farm driveway in sight some 600 to 800 feet further west. The evidence warrants the inference that Cook's erroneous signal and his guiding his car to the left traffic lane, consistent with that signal, lured Maus into an attempt to pass Cook on the right. (Sec. 346.08(1), Stats., permits passing on the right when it may be done in safety and the vehicle overtaken 'is making or about to make a left turn.') While the trial court found as a matter of law that Maus was causally negligent in so passing, it was the jury's province to assess the degree of the causal negligence particularly in comparison with other causally negligent conduct by others.
Appellant has called attention to the fact that his only causal negligence found by the jury was that of his misleading left-turn signal whereas the court found Maus guilty of causal negligence in passing on the right and the jury found him negligent in management and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schemenauer v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...verdict. Rodenkirch v. Johnson (1960), 9 Wis.2d 245, 101 N.W.2d 83; Ruid v. Davis (1959), 8 Wis.2d 288, 99 N.W.2d 129; Maus v. Cook (1961), 15 Wis.2d 203, 112 N.W.2d 589. Coffey claimed he had amnesia and could not remember any of the facts of the accident or what transpired for six hours t......
-
DeGroff v. Schmude
...See: Jahnke v. Smith, supra; Tuschel v. Haasch, supra; Hillstead v. Shaw (1967), 34 Wis.2d 643, 150 N.W.2d 313.7 See: Maus v. Cook (1961), 15 Wis.2d 203, 112 N.W.2d 589; Taylor v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. (1955), 270 Wis. 408, 411, 71 N.W.2d 363.8 '271.03 Costs to defendant. (1) If the......
-
Lawver v. City of Park Falls
...is for the jury and will not be upset except in unusual cases. Mullen v. Reischl (1960), 10 Wis.2d 297, 103 N.W.2d 49; Maus v. Cook (1961), 15 Wis.2d 203, 112 N.W.2d 589. However, in unusual cases we have upset the apportionment and either partially determined the apportionment or granted a......
-
Werner Transp. Co. v. Barts
...be overturned on appeal. Smith v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1973), 56 Wis.2d 752, 755, 203 N.W.2d 34; Maus v. Cook (1961), 15 Wis.2d 203, 206, 207, 112 N.W.2d 589; Niedbalski v. Cuchna (1961), 13 Wis.2d 308, 318, 108 N.W.2d 576. In Vanderkarr v. Bergsma (1969), 43 Wis.2d 556, 563, 16......
-
Comparative Negligence
...announced June 5, 1972); Kresse v. Bennett, 151 Colo. 549, 379 P.2d 807; Barnes v. Lehman, 118 Colo. 161, 193 P.2d 273. 11 Maus v. Cook, 15 Wis.2d 203, 112 N.W.2d 589; see Powers v. Allstate Insur. Co., 10 Wis.2d 78, 102 N.W.2d 393; Evanich v. Milwaukee Electric Ry. & Light Co., 237 Wis. 11......