Leusink v. O'DONNELL

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Leusink v. O'DONNELL

44 N.W.2d 525, 257 Wis. 571, 1950 Wisc. LEXIS 274

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 8, 1950

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 N.W.2d 525 (Leusink v. O'DONNELL) 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

Leusink v. O'DONNELL, 44 N.W.2d 525, 257 Wis. 571, 1950 Wisc. LEXIS 274 (Wis. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Hughes, J.

We are of the opinion that the trial court correctly held that the evidence sustained the verdict of the jury that defendant O’Donnell’s employee was guilty of causal negligence. As Crisman approached the intersection he was traveling forty miles per hour. When four hundred feet away he observed Spielmacher; he did not again look in that direction until it was too late to act. If he had made proper observation of the Spielmacher car as it approached the stop sign, he could have ascertained that it was not slowing down; and while he might not have been able to avoid the first collision, ordinary care would have required him to reduce his own speed so as to avoid becoming a menace to traffic approaching from the opposite direction.

The testimony that Spielmacher had knowledge of the defective condition of his brakes, although he said he never had experienced total failure before, presented a jury question of gross negligence. His plea of guilty, while it may not be conclusive proof of recklessness, is a matter for the jury to consider in connection with the explanation which he offered of his reasons for entering the plea. The trial court erred in failing to submit the question of gross negligence.

All parties concede that the plaintiff was not negligent. They raise no question that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive, so there appears to be no need for a new trial on the question of damages.

*574 By the Court. — Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions to grant a new trial on all issues except the question of damages.

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

Hughes, J.

We are of the opinion that the trial court correctly held that the evidence sustained the verdict of the jury that defendant O’Donnell’s employee was guilty of causal negligence. As Crisman approached the intersection he was traveling forty miles per hour. When four hundred feet away he observed Spielmacher; he did not again look in that direction until it was too late to act. If he had made proper observation of the Spielmacher car as it approached the stop sign, he could have ascertained that it was not slowing down; and while he might not have been able to avoid the first collision, ordinary care would have required him to reduce his own speed so as to avoid becoming a menace to traffic approaching from the opposite direction.

The testimony that Spielmacher had knowledge of the defective condition of his brakes, although he said he never had experienced total failure before, presented a jury question of gross negligence. His plea of guilty, while it may not be conclusive proof of recklessness, is a matter for the jury to consider in connection with the explanation which he offered of his reasons for entering the plea. The trial court erred in failing to submit the question of gross negligence.

All parties concede that the plaintiff was not negligent. They raise no question that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive, so there appears to be no need for a new trial on the question of damages.

*574 By the Court. — Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions to grant a new trial on all issues except the question of damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 N.W.2d 525, 257 Wis. 571, 1950 Wisc. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leusink-v-odonnell-wis-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack