Nimits v. Motor Transp. Co.
| Decision Date | 12 October 1948 |
| Citation | 253 Wis. 362,34 N.W.2d 116 |
| Parties | NIMITS et al. v. MOTOR TRANSPORT CO. et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Ozaukee County; Edward J. Gehl, Judge.
Action by Magdalene Nimits, a sole trader doing business as Ampco Trucking Company and another, against Motor Transport Company and another involving property damage caused by collision of two motor transport trucks. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal.-[By Editorial Staff.]
Affirmed.
The action involves property damage caused by the collision of two motor transport trucks. The case was tried to a jury and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff. From a judgment entered thereon, the defendant and its insurance carrier appeal. D. J. Regan, of Milwaukee, for appellants.
Gustave J. Keller and L. H. Chudacoff, both of Appleton, for respondents.
The collision occurred between the automobile transport truck of the respondent, Magdalene Nimits, and the parked motor transport of the appellant Motor Transport Company. Appellant contends, first, that the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the finding of the jury that the appellant's driver's admitted negligence in not carrying in his truck the fusees, flares and lights required by sec. 85.06(2)(d), Stats. was a proximate cause of the collision between appellant's parked tractor semi-trailer and respondent's moving tractor semi-trailer. Secondly, appellant contends that the court erred in refusing to find as a matter of law that the negligence of the driver of respondent's tractor combination was at least equal to that of the driver of appellant's transport.
Question 1 of the special verdict, as submitted to the jury, was:
‘At and just prior to the time of the collision was John Gries [appellant's driver], in the manner of operating his truck, negligent with respect to:
‘(a) Parking?’
Answered by the jury: No.
‘(b) Having and displaying the lights, fusees, reflectors and flares required by law?’
Answered by stipulation: Yes.
Question 3:
‘Was the negligence of John Gries with respect to having and displaying the lights, fusees, reflectors and flares required by law a cause of the collision?’
Answered by the jury: Yes.
Appellant's principal objection is that the form of question 3 is involved and confusing to the jury in that it includes reflectors as well as fusees and flares; that the statute does not require such reflectors; and therefore the question placed an additional burden on the appellant in the minds of the jurors. It would appear to be a sufficient answer to this argument that subdivision (b) of question 1 was the same and, while possibly defective, no objection to its form was raised by appellant's counsel at the trial, and in fact it was accepted by him and answered on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dutcher v. Phoenix Ins. Co.
...page 105, 118 N.W.2d at page 147.7 Id. at page 106, 118 N.W.2d 140.8 (1967), 34 Wis.2d 680, 150 N.W.2d 423.9 Nimits v. Motor Transport Co. (1948), 253 Wis. 362, 364, 34 N.W.2d 116.10 Wells v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co. (1957), 274 Wis. 505, 518, 80 N.W.2d 380; Kincannon v. National Indemnity C......
-
Bohlman v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 154
...before the jury returns its verdict. A party cannot take his chance with the jury and object only if he loses. Nimits v. Motor Transport Co. (1948), 253 Wis. 362, 34 N.W.2d 116; Johnson v. Sipe (1953), 263 Wis. 191, 56 N.w.2d 852; Martin v. Outboard Marine Corp. (1962), 15 Wis.2d 452, 113 N......
-
Savina v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co.
...before the jury returns its verdict. A party cannot take his chance with the jury and object only if he loses. Nimits v. Motor Transport Co. (1948), 253 Wis. 362, 34 N.W.2d 116; Johnson v. Sipe (1953), 263 Wis. 191, 56 N.W.2d 852; Martin v. Outboard Marine Corp. (1962), 15 Wis.2d 452, 113 N......
-
Swanson v. Maryland Cas. Co.
...submitted to the jury. Hilker v. Western Automobile Ins. Co., 204 Wis. 1, 231 N.W. 257, 235 N.W. 413; see also Nimits v. Motor Transport Co., 253 Wis. 362, 34 N.W.2d 116, 118, where the court 'Counsel for the parties have a distinct obligation to aid in the preparation of special verdicts a......