Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1921-10-26
COLLISION CASE
WIL.L-PROBAbLY
RESULT IN DRAW
ERWIN-BENTZ CASE HEARD
BY COURT JURY.
DEVELOPS MANY ANGLES.

The now famous auto collision case,
j. L. Erwin, Bloomington farmer, VS.
VIM, Bentz, Platteyille farmer, was
tried in circuit court last week.
Brennan & Cartaew appeared for
Erwin and Kopp & Brunckhorst for
Bentz, assuring competent legal tai
ent on both sides and hard fought
case not entirely devoid of verbal
fireworks.
Erwin brought suit for $1,450 al
Ieging that on the evening OF July IA,
1920, a car driven by his son, Louis,
had been struck by a car driven by
Bentz practically wrecking the Erwin
car, Buick. Erwin placed the blame
entirely on Bentz. His subsequent
repair bill was $526.79. The Bentz
Ford car was more less damaged in
the collision and Mrs. Bentz injured
so that she kept her bed for several
days. Bentz filed counter-claim
placing his damage at $1,000, and
asking that the plaintiffs plea be
dismissed and judgment rendered to
him for the amount named in his APP
plicatiOn
The facts as gathered from the
testimony were that young Erwin
and a companion named Barr were
driving from Bloomington to Platte
vile to keep an engagement. At
short distance east of the Banner
Cheese factory they met Bentz who
essayed to turn across the road and
drive down a by-road leading to his
farm. Bentz evidently misjudged the
speed at which the Erwin car was
travelling and assumed that he could
turn in without colliding with the
other car. Had Erwin been driving
at the speed prescribed by law Cat that
time ten miles az hour when passing
q carr Bentz could have turned i'll
his road in plenty of time to avoid
an accident. But Erwin by his tes
timony was driving from Is to %
miles an hour When Bentz reached
the west side of the road the Erwin
car, which admittedly on the right
side of the road, was in front of him.
A collision inevitably resulted. The
substance of the foregoing is that
Bentz misjudged Erwin's speed and
that Erwin did not know there was
by-road or that Pentz was going to
make for it.
The jury answered ten questions
which, stripped OF their legal yerbiage,
are as follows:
Was the collision a pure acct
u0uI! AIS. 1NO.
2-Was the defendant guilty of
want of ordinary care? Ans. Yes.
3-Was a want of ordinary care on
the part of defendant proXimate cause
of damage to plaintiffs car. Ans. Yes.
4-Was driver of plaintiffs car
guilty of want of ordinary care which
proximately contributed to damage to
plaintiffs car Ans. Yes.
5-What sum will measure damage
done to plaintiffs car as a result of
collision? Ans. $526.79
6-Was driver of PLAINTIFFS car
guilty of want OF ordinary care with
reference to manner in which he ran
said auto at and Immediately before
collision? Ans. Yes.
WAS such want of ordinary care
on part of driver of plaintiffs car the
proximate cause of damage to defend
ant? Ans. No.
S-Was the defendant guilty of any
such want of ordinary care which
proximately contributed to damage to
his own automobile? Ans Yes.
9-What sum will measure the dam
age done to defendants automobile?
Ans 500,
10-What sum will reasonably COM
pensate plaintiff on account Of Wife's
injuries? Ans. $40.
The verdict in the case is compiled
by the judge from the answers made
by the jury to the foregoing questions.
A reasonable assumption is that
neither party can collect from the
other