Reddick v. Reddick
| Decision Date | 28 November 1961 |
| Citation | 15 Wis.2d 37,112 N.W.2d 131 |
| Parties | Beverly REDDICK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alfred REDDICK et al., Appellants, John Peterson et al., Interpleaded Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Action by Beverly Reddick to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an accident when a horse ridden by Jean De Boer, aged sixteen, the interpleaded defendant, collided with the car in which Beverly Reddick was a passenger. The car was owned and driven by Alfred Reddick, who was insured by the defendant Western Casualty and Surety Company. The horse Jean De Boer was riding was owned by John Peterson. Peterson was also interpleaded as defendant. Defendants filed a cross complaint against Peterson and De Boer and the latter filed counterclaims against defendants.
The accident occurred on October 11, 1957. On that day Alfred Reddick and his wife Beverly were driving westerly on Highway 12 from Wisconsin Rapids to St. Paul. Approximately 600 feet before they reached the intersection of Highways 12 and 63 their automobile came over a knoll and Mr. Reddick saw a horse and rider approaching the intersection from the south. At that time Reddick thought the horse to be about 300 feet from the intersection. Mr. Reddick then placed his right hand on his wife's leg and kissed her on the side of the face. Reddick did not see the horse again until his wife shouted at which time the horse and rider were only 30 to 40 feet from the automobile. Reddick attempted to avoid the horse and rider by applying the brakes, but his efforts failed and the horse and rider collided with the left side of his car. The automobile was brought to a stop approximately 60 to 70 feet from the place of the collision, and came to rest in a shallow ditch to the right of the highway. After the collision the Reddicks continued on their trip to St. Paul.
The horse ridden by Jean De Boer was owned by John Peterson, a retired farmer. At the time of the accident, Joe Peterson, grandson of the owner, was in charge of the horse. On the day of the accident Joe Peterson rode the horse to the De Boer home. At that time one Donna Nielsen took the horse for a ride. She noticed that the horse wanted to go towards the highway, but she managed to bring the horse back to De Boer's. Jean De Boer then got on the horse and went for a ride around the block. Half way round the block the horse turned and started to gallop towards Highway 12. Jean De Boer managed to stop the horse. She dismounted and led the horse to within a block of her home. She again mounted the horse at which time the horse turned and galloped toward Highway 12. She was unable to stop the horse and thereupon collided with the automobile driven by Mr. Reddick.
Trial was had to the count and a jury. In a special verdict the jury found Alfred Reddick negligent with respect to lookout, management and control and that such negligence was causal. The jury found that Jean De Boer was not negligent in riding the horse under the circumstances. The jury awarded damages to Mrs. Reddick for injuries in the amount of $6,000; and $500 to Jean De Boer for injuries. The value of the dead horse was found by the court to be $120. Judgments were entered accordingly.
Defendants Alfred Reddick and The Western Casualty and Surety Company appeal from the judgments and seek dismissal of the complaint and the counterclaims or a new trial.
Frank L. Morrow, Eau Claire, for appellant.
Brazeau, Brazeau, Potter & Cole, Wisconsin Rapids, for plaintiff-respondent.
White & White, River Falls, for interpleaded defendants-respondents.
Three questions are presented by this appeal:
(1) Was there sufficient credible evidence to support the jury's verdict as to negligence?
(2) Were the damages awarded to the plaintiff, Beverly Reddick in the amount of $6,000, and the interpleaded defendant, Jean De Boer in the amount of $500, excessive?
(3) Were any remarks made by plaintiff's counsel in final argument so prejudicial as to require a new trial?
The jury found that defendant, Alfred Reddick was 100 per cent causally negligent with respect to the accident in question and that Jean De Boer was free from any negligence whatsoever. There was sufficient testimony from which the jury could infer that Reddick was negligent with respect to lookout. It is undisputed that he saw a horse and rider across an open field, galloping toward the highway when he was approximately 600 feet, and the horse and rider approximately 300 feet from the point of collision; that he did not again see the horse and rider until they were 30 to 40 feet from his automobile. Vision was unobstructed and the weather was clear. The horse and rider approached the defendant's automobile from the left. Defendant Reddick had diverted his attention to the right by placing his hand on his wife's leg and kissing her on the face. He did not again see the horse until his wife should a warning. Hiw wife testified that the galloping horse was not under control of the rider. If Reddick had kept a proper lookout, he presumably would have observed this situation and taken measures to prevent the collision.
'Having the right of way does not relieve one of the duty of watching...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krause v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co.
...... Makowski v. Ehlenbach (1960), 11 Wis.2d 38, 103 N.W.2d 907. * * * ' Reddick v. Reddick (1961), 15 Wis.2d 37, 43, 112 N.W.2d 131, 134. . Failure of the trial judge to include his analysis of the evidence in ......
-
Seitz v. Seitz
......Sekach (1966), 29 Wis.2d 281, 139 N.W.2d 88; Ashley v. American Automobile Ins. Co. (1963), 19 Wis.2d 17, 119 N.W.2d 359; Reddick v. Reddick (1961), 15 Wis.2d 37, 112 N.W.2d 131; Puhl v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co. (1959), 8 Wis.2d 343, 99 N.W.2d 163. . 8 Supra, footnote 5. ......
-
Ashley v. American Auto. Ins. Co.
...on an arterial highway. A driver cannot rely entirely upon such an assumption.' A similar expression is found in Reddick v. Reddick (1961), 15 Wis.2d 37, 41, 112 N.W.2d 131, 133, where this court quoted from Puhl v. Milwaukee Automobile Ins. Co. (1959), 8 Wis.2d 343, 348, 99 N.W.2d 'Having ......
-
Menge v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...by the defendant if he had kept a proper lookout, the emergency rule does not apply to this case. * * * ' Reddick v. Reddick (1961), 15 Wis.2d 37, 41, 112 N.W.2d 131, 133. The trial court did not find either the plaintiff or the defendant in this case negligent as a matter of law. However, ......