The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1910-12-15
FINDS COLLIER WAS NEGLIGENT
Hands Down Decision Assessing a Judg-
nent for the Costs of the Action
Against the Plaintiff in Famous Road
Case.
(From Thursdays Daily.)

The people of the town OF Salem
got Christmas present from Judge Il.
B. Belden in the circuit court this
morning when the Judge handed down
decision reversing the verdict OF the
jury in the famous road case of Ed
ward Collier against the town of Salem
aud directed that judgment for the
defendant town be entered. The de-
cisicn OF the court came as a surprise.
The jury had found verdict awarding
Collier damages to the amount OF ST.
500. The attorneys for the town had
made a motion for a new trial declar-
ing that the verdict was not in keep
ing with the law and the evidence.
Judge Belden denies the motion for a
new trial but changes the answer to
one questionable one question in the
verdict-and holds that Collier was
guilty Of contributory negligence and
that in keeping with the change the
town is entitled to verdict and the
costs of the action. The judgment was
entered this morning. The opinion of
the court follows:
|'The jury in this action found (1)
that The highway at the time and
place in question was not in reason
ably safe condition for public travel,
(2) that such unsafe condition Of the
highway was the proximate cause cf
plaintiffs injuries, (3) that the plain
tiff exercised ordinary care, (4) dam
ages for plaintiff in the sum Of 81 800.
The defendant moves the court that
the answers to the first and third ques-
tions Of the verdict be changed and
for Judgment in favor of the defend
ant upon the verdict thus changed, and
in the event such motions be denied
for new trial.
The situation, as presented to the
court upon these motions, does not call
for new trial. The facts are all in
evidence and the situation is one upon
which final judgment can be granted.
The plaintiff is either entitled to judg-
ment upon the verdict BIS found by the
jury, or he is chargeable with contrib
utory negligence preeluding his recov-
cry Of damages against the defendant.
The highway at the time and place
in question was proven so plainly in
sufficient and unsafe for public travel
that no consideration need be given to
the motion to change the answer of
the jury to the first question, and the
motion in that behalf is denied
The motion to change the answer to
the third question of the verdict merits
and has received careful consideration,
bearing in mind that, ordinarily, the
matter of contributory negligence is
for the jury. Discussion of the evil
dence leading to the conclusion of the
court serving no useful purpose here,
will be omitted.
The court is of the opinion that the
situation disclosed by the evidence
makes it the duty of the court to hold,
as matter of law, that the plaintiff
knowingly and unnecessarily proceed
ed into a situation of danger obvious
to one in the exercise of due care, that
he is chargeable with want of ordinary
care proximately contributing to pro
duce his injuries, and that the finding
of the jury to the contrary cannot
be supported. The court considers that
judicial duty in the matter can only be
discharged by so holding, and by grant.
ing the motions to change the answer
to the third question of the verdict
"No" to eyes and for Judgment
upon the verdict so amended in favor
of the defendant. Such motions are
granted and an order and Judgment
accordingly may be entered
BY the Court.
Dated December 7. 1910
e. B. Belden,