Yano v. Stott Briquet Co.
| Citation | 199 N.W. 48,184 Wis. 492 |
| Parties | YANO v. STOTT BRIQUET CO. |
| Decision Date | 03 June 1924 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Douglas County; Archibald McKay, Judge.
Action by George Yano against the Stott Briquet Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed with directions.
Winter street, in the city of Superior, runs east and west. The right of way of the Lake Superior Terminal & Transfer Railway Company tracks runs northwest and southeast across the street. One of these tracks serves defendant's manufacturing plant, situated on the south side of Winter street. About 1 o'clock in the morning of September 3, 1922, the defendant caused five cars, loaded with briquets, to be moved northward so that one car extended into Winter street in such a position that its northeasterly corner extended over the paved portion of Winter street about 4 or 5 feet. The northwesterly corner of the car was flush or nearly so with the south edge of the paving or traveled portion of the street. The plaintiff, who was out riding with a Miss Kolaski, traveled west along Winter street to a point some 200 or 300 yards beyond the tracks, there stopped his Cadillac sedan for some time, then turned around and traveled east along Winter street. Winter street, along its south side, was rough, and the plaintiff was driving in the center or to the north of the center of Winter street. According to the plaintiff's testimony he was blinded by the glare of an approaching headlight, and when about 200 feet distant from the street car he dimmed his headlights in such a manner that the light was thrown down upon the ground at a point not more than 20 feet ahead of the car. As he proceeded, he turned to the south or right-hand side of the street, came in contact with the northeasterly corner of the box car, and sustained injuries to his automobile found by the jury to amount to $1,408.16.
Hanitch, Hartley, McPherson & Johnson, of Superior, for appellant.
Grace, Fridley & Crawford, of Superior, for respondent.
ROSENBERRY, J. (after stating the facts as above).
[1] It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, in this, that he was traveling at a rate of 14 to 15 miles an hour on a city street in the night, with lights so dimmed that he could not see more than 15 or 20 feet ahead of his car. It appears that the night was dark and foggy. Section 1636--52a, subd. 2, provides:
“The minimum requirements for head lamps on any automobile or other similar motor vehicle, except motorcycles, while being driven upon the highway, shall be such as to enable the driver to clearly distinguish a person. vehicle or other substantial object two hundred feet ahead, and the design, adjustment and operation of such head lamps shall be such as to avoid dangerous glare or dazzle.”
Upon the plaintiff's own testimony he violated the provisions of this statute. It has been held that one who drives an automobile at night with dim headlights, so fast that he cannot stop within the distance that he could see an object ahead of him, is guilty of negligence in running into the rear end of a milk wagon. Yahnke v. Lange, 168 Wis. 512, 170 N. W. 722.
In Pietsch v. McCarthy, 159 Wis. 251, 150 N. W. 482, the defendant collided with the rear of plaintiff's wagon, being driven on a...
To continue reading
Request your trial