Seidl v. Knop

Decision Date31 May 1921
Citation174 Wis. 397,182 N.W. 980
PartiesSEIDL v. KNOP.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Walter Schinz, Judge.

Action by Henry Seidl, Jr., an infant, by Henry Seidl, Sr., against Frank Knop. Judgment of civil court of Milwaukee county dismissing complaint, was affirmed by the circuit court, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

An appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county, Walter Schinz, judge presiding, affirming a judgment of the civil court of said county.

The action was brought by plaintiff for personal injuries claimed to have been sustained when plaintiff was struck by a truck belonging to the defendant and driven by his employé, Walter Reese.

On the day of the accident Walter Reese invited the plaintiff to ride with him from the gravel pit of defendant towards town. During this journey an arrangement was made between them whereby Walter Reese was to meet the plaintiff about 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day at a saloon on the Port Washington road on his return to the gravel pit. As Walter Reese drove the truck going north on the Port Washington road towards the saloon at the arranged time, plaintiff stepped out into the middle of the road and waved his hand, indicating that Reese should stop the truck for the purpose of taking him on. The truck was about two blocks away at the time that the plaintiff first observed it, and was coming north on the east of the middle of the road. As Reese approached the plaintiff he crossed the road towards him, and turned his course in the plaintiff's direction intending to stop the truck to the west of the plaintiff, so that the plaintiff would have an opportunity of taking the seat on the truck on the right-hand side; Reese being seated on the left-hand side of the truck. As the truck approached the plaintiff he also moved towards the west towards the curb. The truck collided with plaintiff from three to six feet east of the curb. Plaintiff claims that when he first saw the truck approaching, Reese was driving at a rate of between 12 and 20 miles per hour, which speed he diminished to 8 or 10 miles per hour as he approached plaintiff. Reese, on the other hand, contends that when he first observed plaintiff he was driving at about 8 miles per hour. Plaintiff further contends that after the accident Reese admitted that he had been playing with plaintiff, and was attempting to scare him as he approached. This was denied by Reese.

Two principal defenses were raised by defendant: First, that at the time of the accident Walter Reese was not acting within the scope of his employment; and, second, that there was no negligence on the part of Walter Reese, but that the collision was caused by the contributory negligence of plaintiff.

The trial court directed a verdict in favor of defendant, and ordered judgment dismissing the complaint. The circuit court, after hearing the appeal, affirmed the decision of the trial court. Appeal is taken from this judgment.

Ray J. Cannon and A. W. Richter, both of Milwaukee, for appellant.

Bloodgood, Kemper & Bloodgood, of Milwaukee (Emmet Horan, Jr., of Milwaukee, of counsel), for respondent.

SIEBECKER, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).

The plaintiff claims that the defendant is liable for the injury he sustained upon the ground that the alleged negligence of Reese, as driver of defendant's truck, was an act in the execution of his general authority, and hence at the time of the collision, he was acting within the scope of his employment. On the part of the defendant it is claimed that the facts and circumstances show that at the time of the accident Reese and the plaintiff were engaged in executing a personal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Hibma v. Odegaard, s. 84-1137
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • July 30, 1985
    ...contemplated." ' " Id. [Scott v. Min-Aqua Bats Water Ski Club, 79 Wis.2d 316, 255 N.W.2d 536, 538 (1977) ] quoting Seidl v. Knop, 174 Wis. 397, 400, 182 N.W. 980 (1921). The scope of employment has also been defined to include those acts which are "so closely connected with what the servant......
  • Kohlman v. Hyland
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • October 16, 1926
    ...the return trip, and while he was en route to the hotel, and the court held that the master was not liable. In the case of Seidl v. Knop, 174 Wis. 397, 182 N. W. 980, the Wisconsin court held the master not liable for a diversion of the chauffeur, quoting from section 1880, 2 Mechem on Agen......
  • Kohlman v. Hyland
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • October 16, 1926
    ...the return trip and while he was enroute to the hotel, and the court held, that the master was not liable. In the case of Seidl v. Knop, 174 Wis. 397, 182 N.W. 980, the Wisconsin Court held the master not liable for diversion of the chauffeur, quoting from § 1880, vol. 2, Mechem on Agency, ......
  • Bobos v. Krey Packing Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1927
    ...Ill.App. 30; Doughert v. Ry. Co., 137 Iowa 257; Driscoll v. Scanlon, 165 Mass. 348; Hughes v. Storage & Transfer Co., 269 Pa. 222; Seidl v. Knop, 174 Wis. 397; Walker v. Fuller, 223 Mass. 566; Dover v. Mayes Mfg. Co., 157 N.C. 324; Christie v. Mitchell, 93 W.Va. 200; Rolfe v. Hewitt, 227 N.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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