Thoresen v. La Crosse City Ry. Co.

• Citation: 68 N.W. 548,94 Wis. 129
• Parties: THORESEN v. LA CROSSE CITY RY. CO.
• Decision Date: 13 October 1896
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

94 Wis. 129

68 N.W. 548

THORESEN

v.LA CROSSE CITY RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 13, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, La Crosse county; O. B. Wyman, Judge.

Action by Bersven Thoresen, as administrator of the estate of Marit Thoresen, deceased, against the La Crosse City Railway Company, to recover for the negligent killing of plaintiff's intestate. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.E. C. Higbee and Losey & Woodward, for appellant.

Bleekman, Bloomingdale & Bergh, for respondent.

CASSODAY, C. J.

This action is to recover damages by reason of the death of the plaintiff's intestate, caused by a collision of the vehicle in which she was riding with the defendant's street car on the evening of October 7, 1892. It is undisputed that the defendant's double street-railway track runs north and south on Fourth street, and that the tracks were about 4 feet apart; that King street crosses the same at right angles, and that such double tracks extended for a distance of more than 200 feet north and south from the center of King street; that at the time in question the deceased started in a milk wagon near the northwest corner of King and Fourth streets; that, at the time of starting, the horse's head was facing west on King street; that the deceased sat on the near side, and a boy, a little over 12 years of age, on the off side; that she drove at first westerly, and made a long turn around towards the southwest corner of King and Fourth streets. The boy testified to the effect that as they approached the street-car tracks on Fourth street he saw a street car standing still on the east track, about half a block south of King street; that she was then driving east; that he then saw the car coming from the south, until his view of it was cut off by another car, coming from the north, on the west track; that when he next saw the north-bound car the same was coming pretty fast, about two rods distant, and their horse was then upon the east track, and their wagon on the west track; that the driver of that car at that time stood on the front end of his car, with the lines in his hands, and at first looked back at the side of his car, and then through it in the door, and kept looking in that direction all the time until the car struck the hind wheels of their wagon, and the injury occurred; that the deceased said nothing until they got on the east track, when she “hollered,” and took hold of the whip, and then the horse went faster; that when the car struck the wagon it tipped over, and fell towards the east on Fourth street, and the horse walked a couple of steps south. At the close of the trial the jury returned a special verdict to the effect that the driver of the car was guilty of negligence in the management and operation of his car, which was the approximate cause of the accident from which the deceased came to her death; that at the time of the collision the deceased was driving southeast; that the collision occurred about 20 feet south of King street; that the deceased could not have seen the car coming north on Fourth street before she drove onto the street-car track; that the deceased's view of the car coming north was obstructed by the car going south at about the time she drove on the railway track; that the deceased was not guilty of any want of ordinary care which contributed to the injury; that they found for the plaintiff, and assessed the value of the services of the deceased to the plaintiff for the probable remainder of her life at $1,500. From the judgment entered upon that verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount mentioned the defendant brings this appeal.

There is no claim that the finding of the jury to the effect that the defendant's...