#### Pichler, Respondent, vs. Ladwig, Appellant.

*December 6, 1927*

January *10, 1928.*

*Automobiles: Law of the road: Collisions at street intersections: Contributory negligence.*

In an action for damages resulting from an automobile collision at a street intersection, where plaintiff, driving an automobile, proceeded to cross the intersection after looking and observing defendant’s automobile approaching from his right five times as far from the intersection as he was, plaintiff could not be held negligent as a matter of law because he did not again look for defendant’s approaching automobile after driving a distance not exceeding twenty-three feet.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Otto H. Breidenbach, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action by *Otto Pichler*against *Alfred A. Ladwig*to recover damages resulting from an automobile collision. Judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

Ring street in the city of Milwaukee runs east and west. It is intersected by Eighth street, running north and south. Each street is thirty feet wide from curb to curb. Plaintiff was driving his automobile east on Ring street. Defendant was driving his automobile north on Eighth street. When plaintiff was about fifteen or eighteen feet west of the curb line of Eighth street he saw the defendant’s automobile at a *536point about seventy-five or one hundred feet south of the south curb line of Ring street. He did not observe the speed of the defendant’s car, but, considering that he had time to cross Eighth street, proceeded on his way. When he was from three to five feet east of the west curb line of Eighth street he again looked south and saw defendant’s automobile fifteen or twenty feet south of the south curb line of Ring street, approaching at about thirty miles an hour. The cars collided at the intersection. The jury, by special verdict, found the defendant guilty of negligence and the plaintiff free from contributory negligence.

*D. J. Regan*of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

*George C. Hofer*of Milwaukee, for the respondent.

Owen, J.

The only contention made by appellant here is that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law because he did not look to the south a second time sooner than he did. He took his observations when he was fifteen or eighteen feet west of the curb line of Eighth street. Defendant’s car was seventy-five or one hundred feet south of the south curb line of Ring street; that he could safely proceed across the intersection was a very natural conclusion, in view of the fact that the defendant’s car was approximately five times as far from the intersection as he -was. Naturally he had other observations to make after arriving at such conclusion. To hold that he was guilty of negligence as a matter of law because he did not again look to the south in driving a distance not to exceed twenty-three feet, would be to put drivers of automobiles in strait-jackets and make it well-nigh impossible for them to make comprehensive observations at street intersections. The situation here presented cannot be distinguished from that involved in *Werner v. Yellow Cab Co. 177*Wis. 592, 188 N. W. 77, which case rules this against appellant’s contentions.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.