Rock v. Sarazen
| Decision Date | 11 October 1932 |
| Citation | 244 N.W. 577,209 Wis. 126 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROCK v. SARAZEN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Chippewa County; James Wickham, Circuit Judge.
Action by Nick Rock against Alex A. Sarazen. From the judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Reversed, with directions.
Action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by negligence of defendant in driving a truck on the highway, commenced June 8, 1931; judgment for plaintiff entered December 21, 1931. Defendant appeals.
The plaintiff and his wife, Barbara, in a companion case considered herewith, 244 N. W. 578, sue to recover for injuries sustained in an automobile collision at a highway intersection alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant. The jury by special verdict found the driver of the truck guilty of negligence that caused the injury; and that the plaintiff was not negligent in failing to look to his left for approaching traffic at a point where his view was unobstructed. The same verdict as to the defendant was returned in the wife's case, and she was found not negligent in failing to warn the driver of danger in time to prevent the collision, or in directing the driver to go into a place of danger. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff in each case for damages assessed by the jury.Richmond, Jackman, Wilkie & Toebaas and L. E. Hart, all of Madison, for appellant.
W. H. Stafford and Harold E. Stafford, both of Chippewa Falls (Henry Christoffersen, of Chippewa Falls, of counsel), for respondent.
[1] The main contention of the defendant is that upon the evidence the plaintiffs were guilty of negligence contributing to their injuries as matter of law. The undisputed evidence shows that the defendant was driving a truck north on an arterial highway paved with concrete. The plaintiff was driving an automobile west on a crossroad, intending to turn south at the intersection with the arterial. There was a stop sign at the arterial which under the statute, section 8569, required the plaintiff to stop before entering the intersection. According to the testimony of the plaintiff and the other occupants of his automobile, whose testimony states the case most favorably for the plaintiff, the plaintiff's car came to a full stop when two feet from the concrete. The plaintiff looked to his left before proceeding, and saw no vehicle approaching. At this point the plaintiff had a clear view south to the top of a hill, 450 feet from the intersection, and the top of the approaching truck was visible 50 or 60 feet beyond the hill top. Supposing no one was coming, the plaintiff proceeded. The collision occurred at about the center of the intersection, when the plaintiff was turning, or had just completed the turn, south. The plaintiff was driving 15 miles an hour when the vehicles met. In arriving at this speed from a full stop, he averaged 7 1/2 miles an hour or 11 feet a second. He travelednot more than 30 feet at most from the point at which he looked, and it took him less than three seconds to traverse this distance. The point at which the defendant's truck was not visible from the place where plaintiff looked was 500 feet away. For the defendant to traverse 500 feet in the three seconds it took plaintiff to travel 30 he would have to travel 16 times as fast...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwartz v. Eitel
...to keep a lookout and observe where an efficient observation may be had, Svenson v. Vondrak, 200 Wis. 312, 227 N.W. 240; Rock v. Sarazen, 209 Wis. 126, 244 N.W. 577; and DeBaker v. Austin, 233 Wis. 39, 287 N.W. 720, and we are urged to hold that the plaintiff violated the Wisconsin Statutes......
-
Rogers v. Jefferson
...plaintiff the right of way, and that a collision was inevitable unless he took measures to avoid it.” In the case of Rock v. Sarazen, 209 Wis. 126, 244 N.W. 577, 578, the court states: “We are also of opinion that the plaintiff's want of care in this respect proximately contributed to produ......
-
Olson v. Mason
...approaching is negligence as a matter of law. Lake to Lake Dairy Co-op. v. Andrews, 264 Wis. 170, 58 N.W.2d 685 (1953); Rock v. Sarazen, 209 Wis. 126, 244 N.W. 577 (1932). This court is also satisfied that under the law of Wisconsin the plaintiffs had a legal right to assume that the defend......
-
Cherney v. Simonis
...statutory right. Whyte v. Lindblom, 216 Wis. 21, 255 N.W. 265, 256 N.W. 244;Nelson v. Klemm, 210 Wis. 432, 245 N.W. 657;Rock v. Sarazen, 209 Wis. 126, 244 N.W. 577;Paluczak v. Jones, 209 Wis. 640, 245 N.W. 655. The presumption that others will not violate the law is a circumstance to be con......