Case ID: wis_205/html/0049-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rosenberry, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wenninger, Administratrix, Respondent, vs. Witt, Appellant.
    
      April 7
    
    May 12, 1931.
    
    
      
      Frank H. Hannaford of Milwaukee, for the appellant.
    For the respondent there was a brief by Gold & McCann of Milwaukee, and oral argument by Ray T. McCann.
    
   Rosenberry, C. J.

The defendant seems to be under the impression that the civil court could not properly find the defendant guilty of negligence in driving his tractor upon a public highway late in the afternoon of a wintry day unless it found that by statute the defendant was required to carry a light upon the tractor. That one may be guilty of a want of ordinary care in failing to disclose the presence of an object such as a Fordson tractor under the conditions as they existed at the time and place in question, although the statute does not specifically require a light to be carried, seems to be too plain for argument. It is not necessary for the defendant to be guilty as a matter of law; it is sufficient if he is guilty as a matter of fact. As the circuit court held, the evidence was ample to sustain the finding of the civil court irrespective of whether or not the statute requires a light upon the tractor. The fact that the statute does not absolutely require a light is no excuse for failure to exercise ordinary care. It simply leaves the question of liability open to be determined upon the facts of each case.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.