Stuart v. Collins

Citation229 N.W. 533,201 Wis. 170
PartiesSTUART v. COLLINS.
Decision Date04 March 1930
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Green Lake County; C. F. Van Pelt, Circuit Judge.

Action by R. C. Stuart against Mary A. Collins. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Reversed, with directions.

Action begun August 30, 1928; judgment entered July 6, 1929.

Auto collision. Special verdict finding the defendant guilty of negligence in not yielding the right of way, and failing to keep a proper lookout, such negligence proximately causing the plaintiff's damage; finding plaintiff guilty of negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout, but that the defendant's damages and injuries were not the natural result of such negligence.

The plaintiff was traveling west on the highway in a “Studebaker President.” The highway was sixty-six feet wide, and the traveled portion was graveled eighteen and one-half feet wide.

The defendant was driving north in a Ford business coupé, along a private roadway leading into the public highway at right angles. The two cars collided on the main highway as the defendant turned west on the main highway. The cars side-swiped, defendant's car being damaged on the right side and plaintiff's car on the left side.

The defendant claims she was driving twenty miles an hour, and that she stopped her car before going on to the traveled portion of the highway; that she looked east and west and could see no approaching car; that she then proceeded on to the highway, and was struck from behind.

The plaintiff claims he was driving thirty to thirty-five miles an hour, and saw defendant just as she turned west on to the highway, but too late to prevent the collision.

It is conceded that both drivers had a clear view for two hundred and fifty feet along the highway.Harry V. Meissner, of Milwaukee, for respondent.

George B. Heaney, of Berlin (T. L. Doyle, of Fond du Lac, of counsel), for appellant.

CROWNHART, J.

The jury found the defendant guilty of negligence in not yielding the right of way, and in not keeping a proper lookout, and that plaintiff's damages were the natural result of such acts of negligence. There is sufficient evidence to support this finding of the jury.

The jury further found by their verdict that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout, and that he ought reasonably to have foreseen, under the circumstances, that he might probably produce injury to some one.

This finding of the jury is equally well supported. It is conceded that the highway was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Hill v. Walters
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1940
    ...to the cause of the injury. Robinson v. American Ice Company (Penna.) 141 A. 244; 19 S.W.2d 234; 3-4 Huddy, pp. 342, 351; Stuart v. Collins (Wis.) 229 N.W. 533. As to duty of a driver in passing another's car, we cite 2 Blashfield, 44, 45, 59, 60, 125 and 42 C. J. 943. It is the duty of a d......
  • Caseville Inv. Co. v. Berg
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1930

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