McGuiggan v. Hiller Bros.
| Decision Date | 09 November 1932 |
| Citation | 245 N.W. 97,209 Wis. 402 |
| Parties | MCGUIGGAN v. HILLER BROS. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County; August C. Hoppmann, Circuit Judge.
Action by Hector McGuiggan, by Spencer Lucas, his guardian ad litem, against Hiller Bros., a corporation. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
The action was commenced on August 26, 1931, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in an automobile accident which occurred on June 25, 1931. The case was tried before the court and a jury, and, upon the conclusion of the evidence, the court directed a verdict for the defendant. From a judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint, entered January 23, 1932, plaintiff appeals.
Such further facts as are necessary to an understanding of the questions involved will be stated in the opinion.Hill, Beckwith & Harrington, of Madison, for appellant.
Stephens, Sletteland & Sutherland, of Madison, for respondents.
At the time of the accident, plaintiff was driving west from Madison to Verona in a Chevrolet coupé. A truck owned by defendant was being driven east upon the same highway, and was operated by an employee of the defendant. Defendant's truck was equipped with a rack, which was between eighty-five and eighty-six inches in width, and which extended about nine inches out from the body of the truck on either side. The accident happened at 2 a. m. on June 25, 1931, and the truck carried no clearance lights or any other lights to designate it as a truck. This was in violation of section 85.06, Stats., relating to the lighting equipment of such vehicles.
The accident happened on highway 18, near the Dane County Asylum. In front of the asylum is a strip of asphalt paving some thirty-five feet wide. On either side of the asphalt the road is the ordinary twenty-foot concrete highway. At the point where the asphalt joins the concrete highway on the east there is an expansion strip of asphalt filler. According to the evidence of all the parties, the accident happened approximately at this point. The left front portion of plaintiff's Chevrolet coupé collided with the rack and rear wheel of defendant's truck. Plaintiff claims that he drove upon his own side of the highway, and that the accident was caused by the fact that the rack of defendant's truck extended over the center line of the highway. According to the driver and other occupant of defendant's truck, the plaintiff proceeded on his own side of the highway until his headlights were about even with those of defendant's truck, and then swerved into defendant's truck. Both of defendant's witnesses claimed that the truck was entirely upon its right side of the road.
[1] Upon the above facts, standing alone, there was clearly a jury question. However, the contention was made by the defendant, and sustained by the trial court, that plaintiff's testimony is contrary to the undisputed physical facts, which clearly demonstrate that defendant's truck, including the rack, was well to its right of the center line. It is conceded that this accident happened at or slightly east of the expansion strip which marks the eastern boundary between the asphalt and the concrete. It is conceded that there were left in this soft asphalt strip the marks of dual tires, and that these marks were made by the rear wheels of defendant's truck. The distance between the outside mark and the center line of the highway was two feet eight and one-half inches. It is unnecessary to set out the detailed measurements of the truck. They were not in dispute, and the location of the tire marks, considered in connection with the measurements of the truck, demonstrate beyond the possibility of a dispute not only that the outer edge of the rack on defendant's truck could not have been over the center line, but, indeed, that it could not have been nearer the center line than two feet. In addition to this, there was a series of gouges and scratches concededly made by the left front wheel of plaintiff's coupé. These gouges and scratches commenced just west of the asphalt expansion strip and angled to the southwest until they reached the curb on plaintiff's left-hand side of the road. The left front wheel of plaintiff's coupé was broken off by the collision, and the scratches were caused by the axle of the coupé dragging along the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lang v. Rogney
...will ordinarily be limited to cases where the negligence of each is of precisely the same kind and character. McGuiggan v. Hiller Bros., 209 Wis. 402, 245 N.W. 97; Quady v. Sickl, 260 Wis. 348, 51 N.W.2d 3; Cherney v. Holmes, 7 Cir., 185 F.2d 718; Parker v. Motor Transport Co., 253 Wis. 365......
- State v. Whatley
-
Heiden v. City of Milwaukee
...its finding that only 10 per cent. of the causal negligence was attributable to the plaintiff should not be disturbed. McGuiggan v. Hiller Bros., 209 Wis. 402, 245 N.W. 97;Brown v. Haertel, 210 Wis. 345, 244 N.W. 630. [11][12] The defendant next contends that its motion for a new trial shou......
-
Bohlman v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 154
...that was once stated to be the rule in Quady v. Sickl (1952), 260 Wis. 348, 51 N.W.2d 3, 52 N.W.2d 134 and McGuiggan v. Hiller Brothers (1932), 209 Wis. 402, 245 N.W. 97. While superficially, negligence of the same kind and character may seem to carry equality of the contribution of causati......