Roberts v. Knorr
| Decision Date | 04 December 1951 |
| Citation | 260 Wis. 288,50 N.W.2d 374 |
| Parties | ROBERTS, v. KNORR et al. WANGELINE, by WIENANDT, v. KNORR et al. (two cases). |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
These are three identical actions to recover damages for personal injuries brought by passengers in the automobile of defendant Ronald Knorr at the time it was struck by an automobile driven by defendant Greutzmacher, June 1, 1950. Just previous to the collision the Knorr car was being driven north on a blacktop public highway. The blacktop was twenty feet wide and had dirt shoulders. The Greutzmacher automobile was being driven south and the collision occurred when Knorr turned to the west across Greutzmacher's path intending to enter a farm driveway. The accident occurred at night, on the blacktop at the point where the driveway joined the highway. Except for the darkness, driving conditions were good. The jury found that Knorr was casually negligent in operating his automobile in a manner likely to endanger the lives and property of other lawful users of the highway and in failing to maintain a proper lookout. It was admitted, and the court found, that he was causally negligent in failing to signal his intention to turn left into a private driveway. The jury found, further, that Greutzmacher was not negligent as to lookout or speed. He did nothing whatever to avoid the accident and the jury found he was causally negligent in failure to keep his automobile under proper control. The trial court changed the answer to the latter question from 'Yes' to 'No', which freed Greutzmacher from all negligence and entered judgment dismissing the complaint as to Greutzmacher and granting judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against Knorr. The jury had apportioned negligence eighty-five per cent to Knorr and fifteen per cent to Greutzmacher. The plaintiffs have appealed. Their contention is that there was evidence to support the finding of jury that Greutzmacher was causally negligent in the control of his automobile and it was error for the court to change the jury's answer.
Sigman & Sigman, Appleton, for appellant.
Harry P. Hoeffel, Appleton, for respondents.
The testimony most favorable to plaintiffs' contention is that which gives the longest time for Greutzmacher to react to the situation caused by Knorr turning into his path. Such testimony puts Knorr's distance south of the driveway at forty feet when he turned to go into the driveway. He maintained a speed of fifteen miles per hour....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schemenauer v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...well as action. An emergency may exist in a layman's sense, Hoehne v. Mittelstadt (1948), 252 Wis. 170, 31 N.W.2d 150; Roberts v. Knorr (1951), 260 Wis. 288, 50 N.W.2d 374, which requires quick action and thinking upon the part of the driver but the time is not so short as to relieve the ac......
-
Jewell v. Schmidt
...Automobile Ins. Co., 1940, 234 Wis. 332, 291 N.W. 311; Hoehne v. Mittelstadt, 1947, 252 Wis. 170, 31 N.W.2d 150; Roberts v. Knorr, 1951, 260 Wis. 288, 50 N.W.2d 374; Havens v. Havens, 1954, 266 Wis. 282, 63 N.W.2d 86, 47 A.L.R.2d 1; Bachmann v. Bollig, 1955, 270 Wis. 82, 70 N.W.2d 216; and ......
-
Cook v. Thomas
...well as action. An emergency may exist in a layman's sense, Hoehne v. Mittelstadt (1948), 252 Wis. 170, 31 N.W.2d 150; Roberts v. Knorr (1951), 260 Wis. 288, 50 N.W.2d 374, which requires quick action and thinking upon the part of the driver but the time is not so short as to relieve the ac......
-
Sandley v. Pilsner
...They contend that he was faced by an emergency and therefore would not be negligent under the rules enunciated in Roberts v. Knorr, 260 Wis. 288, 50 N.W.2d 374; Hoehne v. Mittelstadt, 252 Wis. 170, 31 N.W.2d 150; Havens v. Havens, 266 Wis. 282, 65 N.W.2d 86, and Walter v. Shemon, 267 Wis. 4......