STRYK v. Sydarowich
| Decision Date | 02 April 1929 |
| Citation | 224 N.W. 479,198 Wis. 542 |
| Parties | STRYK v. SYDAROWICH. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Clark County; E. W. Crosby, Circuit Judge. Reversed.
Action by M. Stryk against Nick Sydarowich, begun January 4, 1927, to recover for damages done to plaintiff's automobile in a collision with defendant's car. From a judgment dismissing the action, entered March 22, 1928, the plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff was proceeding in a northerly direction upon his right side of the road toward the culvert where the collision occurred. The defendant was driving in a southerly direction down the center of the road toward the same culvert. After the collision the rear right wheel of plaintiff's automobile was crushed against the southerly end of the culvert head on plaintiff's right side of the road. The front of plaintiff's automobile was near the culvert head, but pointed out toward the center of the road. The left rear wheel and fender of plaintiff's car was also damaged.
The defendant admitted that his automobile hit the left rear side of plaintiff's car. Defendant contended however, that plaintiff's automobile hit the culvert head before the cars collided. The jury found both the plaintiff and the defendant guilty of negligence that proximately contributed to produce the damage to plaintiff's car. The court refused to change the answer as to contributory negligence, and dismissed the action.Herman Leicht, of Medford, for appellant.
J. F. Murry, of Thorp, for respondent.
[1][2][3] The single question presented is whether the finding of the jury, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, is so contrary to the undisputed physical facts that the proof does not sustain this finding of the jury.
The court submitted the case to the jury under such instructions that the finding, that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, means that the jury based their answer upon defendant's statement that plaintiff's car hit the culvert before defendant's car collided with it.
Starting with the admitted fact that the defendant's automobile did in fact hit the left rear end of plaintiff's car, the undisputed physical facts clearly demonstrate that defendant must have been mistaken in his testimony that he did not collide with plaintiff's car until after it had hit the culvert head. Had plaintiff's car hit the culvert head before the defendant collided with it, the front end of plaintiff's car would have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Agerbeck
...643; Jones v. City of Detroit, 171 Mich. 608, 137 N.W. 513; Jacobson v. City of Milwaukee, 262 Wis. 256, 55 N.W.2d 1; Stryk v. Sydarowich, 198 Wis. 542, 224 N.W. 479; Bauch v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 251 Wis. 489, 29 N.W.2d 494; City of Hazard v. Eversole, 237 Ky. 242, 35 S.W......
-
Nieman v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...renbered the contrary testimony of witnesses incredible are: Haggerty v. Rain (1922), 177 Wis. 374, 186 N.W. 1017; Stryk v. Sydarowich (1929), 198 Wis. 542, 224 N.W. 479; Burns v. Weyker (1935), 218 Wis. 363, 261 N.W. 244; and Strnad v. Co-operative Ins. Mut., supra, footnote 4.Cases holdin......
-
Behling v. Lohman
...v. Menasha Paper Co. (1911), 147 Wis. 285, 133 N.W. 142; Haggerty v. Rain (1922), 177 Wis. 374, 186 N.W. 1017; Stryk v. Sydarowich (1929), 198 Wis. 542, 224 N.W. 479; Burns v. Weyker (1935), 218 Wis. 363, 261 N.W. 244; and Strnad v. Co-operative Insurance Mutual (1949), 256 Wis. 261, 40 N.W......
-
Heibel v. Voth
...Further decisions of this court holding to the same effect are Haggerty v. Rain, 1922, 177 Wis. 374, 186 N.W. 1017; Stryk v. Sydarowich, 1929, 198 Wis. 542, 224 N.W. 479; Burns v. Weyker, 1935, 218 Wis. 363, 261 N.W. 244, and Strnad v. Co-Operative Insurance Mutual, 1949, 256 Wis. 261, 40 N......