Raddant v. Tamminen

Decision Date02 February 1954
PartiesRADDANT, v. TAMMINEN et al.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

At the time of the accident Esther Weiss (then Esther Tamminen), who was later married to Paul Weiss, was driving Mr. Weiss's Packard automobile in a general southerly direction on Highway 51. Mr. Weiss was a passenger, as were Mrs. Helen Fleming and her daughter. Jewel Raddant was driving his Kaiser-Frazer automobile in a general northerly direction on this highway. Reginald Raddant, his son, and Myrtle Raddant, his wife, were passengers riding in the front seat. Six other children were occupants of the rear seat.

Highway 51 at the point of the accident is a blacktop surface twenty feet in width with a shoulder on the east side consisting of six feet and three inches of gravel and an additional two feet of grass. Esther Weiss testified that as she approached the scene of the accident, she was the third in a string of cars. The car immediately ahead of her pulled out to pass the car ahead of it. She pulled out to pass the car then ahead of her. As the first car moved back into the right-hand lane of traffic, she saw the Raddant car coming in a northerly direction and then tried to get back into her right lane of traffic but couldn't.

Mr. Peterson, who was driving the car Mrs. Weiss tried to pass, testified that he was going 55 miles per hour, and that he pulled his car over to the right, placing it partially on the right-hand shoulder, with some of it still on the pavement. Mrs. Weiss also testified that she did not know a hill was ahead, although the physical facts show it to be there. The undisputed evidence is that Raddant was on his proper side of the road going uphill and did not reach a point where he could see Mrs. Weiss's invasion of his side of the road until the cars were but a short distance apart, too late for him to escape the collision unless Mrs. Weiss could drive her car between his car, then partly on the left-hand shoulder, and the Peterson car, partly on the right-hand shoulder. Other facts will be referred to in the opinion.

Genrich & Terwilliger, Wausau, for defendants-appellants. Emil A. Wakeen, Walter H. Piehler, Neil M. Conway, Wausau, of counsel.

Russel J. Greb, Wausau, for Paul A. Weiss.

Smith, Okoneski, Puchner & Tinkham, Wausau, for impleaded defendants-respondents.

FAIRCHILD, Chief Justice.

The first question on this appeal is: Was an emergency created solely by the negligent acts of appellant, or did Jewel Raddant act so as to contribute to that emergency? Mrs. Weiss was attempting to pass a car which was admittedly moving at the rate of 55 miles per hour. She was moving toward a hill in the road which declined in the direction she was going. Her view was thus limited so that she could not see the oncoming car until it was too late to avoid a collision. She took a chance on passing the car in front of her without being perfectly sure that she would have time to get around it and back into her own lane of travel safely. Users of the highway are required to observe the rules of the road, and it was the duty of Mrs. Weiss under the law to stay in her lane of travel or keep such a position on the road as would allow her enough space to return to it safely.

When Raddant was suddenly faced with the emergency created by Mrs. Weiss's violation of the law of the road, he was proceeding in a perfectly proper way, observing the rules of the road. It is contended by appellants that Raddant was guilty of negligent lookout, management and control. They base their claim of negligence as to lookout on the fact that Raddant could have seen the top of the Weiss car when it was 600-700 feet down the road. In his memorandum opinion, the trial court describes the situation as follows: 'He was, at least, 83 feet south of where the cars stopped when he saw the approaching car because he skidded that far. And the evidence certainly would cause one to reach no other conclusion than that the Weiss car traveled at least 83 feet...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Winter v. Moore
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1963
    ...as by operating the vehicle * * * on the wrong side of the highway, and then derive a benefit from such situation.' Raddant v. Tamminen, 266 Wis. 49, 62 N.W.2d 428, 429, is a case much like this where the car immediately ahead of defendant's 'pulled out to pass the car ahead of it. She pull......
  • Schneider v. Depies
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • February 2, 1954
  • Mlinar v. Olson Transp. Co.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • October 11, 1955
    ...Bretl was faced with an emergency as a matter of law. Havens v. Havens, 1954, 266 Wis. 282, 63 N.W.2d 86; Raddant v. Tamminen, 1954, 266 Wis. 49, 62 N.W.2d 428; Hoehne v. Mittelstadt, 1948, 252 Wis. 170, 31 N.W.2d 150; and Feinsinger v. Bard, 7 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 45. His duty therefore wa......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT