Peterson v. Sims
| Decision Date | 06 April 1926 |
| Parties | PETERSON v. SIMS. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Racine County; E. R. Burgess, Judge.
Action by Martin Peterson against H. P. Sims, who interposed a counterclaim. From a judgment for plaintiff, and dismissing the counterclaim, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
At about 6:15 p. m. December 28, 1922, at Racine, plaintiff with a guest was driving in his Studebaker touring car northwesterly on Rapids drive, and approaching Blake avenue, which opened into from the north but did not cross Rapids drive. Defendant was driving a Cole 8 of about 4,000 pounds south in about the center of said Blake avenue, intending to turn and go southeasterly on Rapids drive. The two cars collided on Rapids drive; the plaintiff's right front and defendant's left front wheels coming in contact. Defendant counterclaimed for his damages.
By special verdict, the jury found: (1) A want of ordinary care on defendant's part in the operation of his car. (2) That such want of ordinary care on defendant's part was “ the proximate cause” of the collision. (3) A want of ordinary case on plaintiff's part in the operation of his car. (4) Such want of ordinary care was not “ the proximate cause.”
Judgment was entered, dismissing defendant's counterclaim and granting plaintiff judgment. From such judgment, defendant has appealed.
Bendinger, Graebner, Hayes & Hofer, of Milwaukee (Wallace H. Hahn, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellant.
Shockley & Dougherty, of Milwaukee, for respondent.
ESCHWEILER, J. (after stating the facts as above).
Defendant claims to have turned sharply to the west just before and to avoid the collision, but there is evidence warranting the jury's finding that he was negligent in operating his car, and supporting plaintiff's contention that defendant was driving faster than plaintiff, and in going into Rapids drive turned to the left of the intersection, in violation of law.
Plaintiff fixes the point of the collision at some 6 feet to the west and 6 feet to the south of the curb at such northeast corner, and his car, after they both came to a stop, was at the south curb of Rapids drive, facing southwest, with defendant's car some 12 to 15 feet to the northwest. The passenger in plaintiff's car had been thrown therefrom by the collision, and was lying between the two cars. Headlights were showing on both cars.
[1] At this time there was no building at or near this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierce v. Bean, 2161
... ... Barratt of Laramie ... The ... judgment against appellant is not supported by substantial ... evidence. Peterson v. Johnson (Wyo.) 28 P.2d 487; ... Wilde v. Amoretti Lodge Co. (Wyo.) 41 P.2d 508; ... Fieldhouse v. Leisberg, 15 Wyo. 207; C. B. & Q. Ry ... Co ... McCoid, 193 Iowa 935; Arno v. Delta Hardware ... Co., 231 Mich. 488; Masonholder v. O'Toole ... (Iowa) 210 N.W. 778; Peterson v. Sims, 189 Wis ... 517; Dansky v. Kotimake, 124 Me. 72; Carlson v ... Meusberger, 200 Iowa 65; Balvoll v. Pinnow, 189 ... Wis. 535; Fisher v. Johnson, ... ...
-
Sayen v. Rydzewski
...269 Wis. 432, 69 N.W.2d 459 (1955); Bodden v. John H. Detter Coffee Co., 218 Wis. 451, 454, 261 N.W. 209 (1935); Peterson v. Simms, 189 Wis. 517, 519, 208 N.W. 264 (1926); Swartz v. Sommerfeldt, 272 Wis. 17, 74 N.W.2d 632 (1956); In Kuentzel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 12 Wis.......
- Hiller v. State
-
De Haan v. Wolff
...N. W. 323; Anderson v. Jenney Motor Co., 150 Minn. 358, 185 N. W. 378; Haggerty v. Rain, 177 Wis. 374, 186 N. W. 1017; Peterson v. Simms, 189 Wis. 517, 208 N. W. 264. Like Sorenson v. Sanderson, 176 Minn. 299, 223 N. W. 145, this is not a case where plaintiff saw the defendant's car and mis......