Shapiro v. Klinker
| Decision Date | 08 November 1950 |
| Citation | 257 Wis. 622,44 N.W.2d 622 |
| Parties | SHAPIRO et al. v. KLINKER et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Schubring, Ryan, Peterson & Sutherland, Madison, for appellant.
Curran & Curran, Mauston, Aberg, Bell, Blake & Conrad, Carroll Metzner, Madison, for respondents.
The collision occurred at about 12:10 a. m. on November 5, 1948, within the city limits of the city of Mauston. Wesley, the driver of the tractor and trailer, had entered the easterly limits of the city and was proceeding in a westerly direction upon State Trunk Highway 12. The defendant Klinker was driving his automobile in an easterly direction upon said highway. It had been raining and there was a slight mist at the time of the collision. The accident happened upon a curve. Immediately following the collision each vehicle was partially over the center line of the highway, which consisted of a twenty-foot slab of concrete with a black center line and with wide gravel shoulders on each side.
The defendant Klinker testified that on November 4, 1948, he drove to New Lisbon to attend a meeting of a veterans' organization. He drove a maroon-colored, 1946 model, two-door V8 Ford car. He consumed two bottles of beer before attending the meeting at 8 p.m. After the meeting he consumed four bottles of beer. He then planned to drive to Joe's Night Club, which was located east of Mauston. He drove upon highway 12 from highway 80 in New Lisbon, making a right turn and proceeding in the direction of Mauston. He testified that he drove upon his own side of the highway and was upon his own side of the highway when he first noticed the tractor-trailer about one hundred feet away. He could remember little of what happened after seeing the truck.
The driver Wesley testified that he first saw the Klinker car some distance to his west and it was passing another automobile. He again observed it when it was three to four hundred feet from the point of collision. He testified that from that time on Klinker's car veered from one side of the road to the other and when a short distance from him was on the northerly side of the highway, which would be the wrong side of the road for Klinker to travel upon. Wesley's testimony was corroborated to some extent by the testimony of the witness Hilligoss.
Upon this appeal the plaintiff contended, among other things, that the trial court wrongfully excluded the evidence of one Dahlberg relative to Klinker's manner of driving prior to the collision. The witness Dahlberg was called by the plaintiffs. Objection was made to several questions asked the witness and the objections were sustained by the trial judge. The jury was excused and by way of offer of proof the witness testified that at about midnight on November 4, 1948, he was driving a truck through the city of New Lisbon in the direction of Mauston on State Trunk Highway 12; that a car entered the highway from an intersecting road without stopping for the arterial stop sign, turned to the right ahead of the witness and proceeded in the same direction; that the witness drove behind said car for a distance of about a mile and a half when the car disappeared around a curve in the road; that during that period he could plainly see...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wedgeworth
...with waiver of jeopardy when it appears that the defendant is surprised by the state's possession of such evidence.1 Shapiro v. Klinker, 257 Wis. 622, 44 N.W.2d 622 (1951). See comments to Rule 904.01, Stats.1979-80, 59 Wis.2d Rp. 67-70.2 Hicks v. State, 47 Wis.2d 38, 176 N.W.2d 386 (1970);......
-
Carter v. Moberly
...been reversed for excluding such evidence. For examples, see Tingle v. Foster, 399 S.W.2d 475, 477 (Ky.1966), and Shapiro v. Klinker, 257 Wis. 622, 44 N.W.2d 622, 624 (1950). In addition, see Briggs v. Burk, 174 Kan. 440, 257 P.2d 164, 172 (1953). No cases have been cited by counsel, and we......
-
Hart v. State
...high degree of negligence or whether it should have been excluded as irrelevant or too remote. 7 In Shapiro v. Klinker, 257 Wis. 622, 626, 627, 44 N.W.2d 622, 624 (1950), this court adopted the following from 1 Jones, Evidence (4th ed.), sec. "In determining a dispute concerning the relevan......
-
Krueger v. Tappan Co.
...386, 249 N.W.2d 810, 816 (1977), quoting from 1 Jones, Evidence sec. 137 at 238, 239 (4th ed.), as approved by Shapiro v. Klinker, 257 Wis. 622, 626-27, 44 N.W.2d 622, 624 (1950). Plaintiff argues that under this standard, where nothing between 1970 and 1979 changed the characteristics of f......