Hirschberg v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.

190 N.W. 829, 179 Wis. 175, 1922 Wisc. LEXIS 89
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 5, 1922
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 190 N.W. 829 (Hirschberg v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hirschberg v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co., 190 N.W. 829, 179 Wis. 175, 1922 Wisc. LEXIS 89 (Wis. 1922).

Opinion

Eschweiler; J.

We think-the circuit court was clearly right in holding that the record discloses such contributory negligence by the plaintiff as must, as a matter of law, prevent her recovery against the defendant notwithstanding the jury’s finding that there was a want of proper lookout by the motorman. The plaintiff and her escort were crossing the street with full knowledge of the unusually limited space within which such a large object as an approaching street car could be expected to be seen, from having just seen the north-bound car passing on out of sight. Clearly such a situation placed the duty upon the plaintiff, in the proper regard for her own safety, to exercise a reasonable degree of care and caution in entering upon the known zone of danger, and proportioned, to some extent at least, to the then known existing conditions.

From the center of the north-bound track, the point at which according to her testimony she last looked to the north for an approaching car, to the zone of the overhang of the approaching car was not in excess of seven feet. Such a large object as an approaching street car must have been within her. vision if she looked, and to proceed further was plainly negligence, or else she is mistaken in her testimony as to her observation. Whichever view in that regard is. adopted it is evident that she did not properly discharge her duty and obligation as to her own safety.

The disposition of this case by the circuit court therefore must be approved.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miller v. Utah Light & Traction Co.
86 P.2d 37 (Utah Supreme Court, 1939)
Zalewski v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.
263 N.W. 577 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1935)
Kroehler v. Arntz
221 N.W. 727 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1928)
Saltzberg v. Tax
200 N.W. 863 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1925)
Syslack v. Nevin Grocery Co.
193 N.W. 61 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 N.W. 829, 179 Wis. 175, 1922 Wisc. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirschberg-v-milwaukee-electric-railway-light-co-wis-1922.