Case Name: Sweetman, Respondent, vs. City of Green Bay, Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1912-01-09
Citations: 147 Wis. 586
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sweetman, Respondent, vs. City of Green Bay, Appellant.
Judges: Marshall, J., Winslow, C. X, and Vinje, X, dissent.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 147
Pages: 586–605

Head Matter:
Sweetman, Respondent, vs. City of Green Bay, Appellant.
October 7, 1911
January 9, 1912.
Highways: Defeats outside of traveled traclc: Injury to traveler in automobile: Contributory negligence: Questions for jury.
1. Whatever may be the width and suitableness of the traveled track of a highway, there may exist dangerous defects outside of such track, — much depending on the nature and situation of the alleged defect, whether it can plainly be seen, and whether it is so connected with the traveled track as to affect the safety of those using the highway in the ordinary way and in the exercise of ordinary care.
2. In view of the general condition of intersecting streets within city limits, and their immediate surroundings and the way in which they were being used, a jury was warranted in finding that an unguarded pit or open ditch, six feet long, two feet wide, and sixteen inches deep, at the end of a culvert and close to the traveled tracks of both streets, was an insufficiency rendering the highway not reasonably safe for use by the traveling public.
3. Whether or not a person who, while driving an automobile at a lawful rate within the traveled portion of the street, failed to observe such ditch in time to avoid it, was guilty of contributory negligence, is held, upon the evidence, to have been a question for the jury.
4. The defense of contributory negligence must be affirmatively established.
Marshall, J., Winslow, C. X, and Vinje, X, dissent.
Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Brown county: S. D. Hastings, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
This is an action to recover the damages resulting to the plaintiff through his automobile running into an open ditch on one of the highways of the defendant city of Green Bay.
The intersection of Ninth street and Ridge road in the city of Green Bay is in a rural neighborhood near the city limits. Ninth street runs east and west and Ridge road north and south. Ridge road south of Ninth street is of the same width as north of it, but the center line of the highway south of Ninth street is about six feet east of the center line of the highway north of Ninth street. Both of these highways are turnpiked along their central portions, and at their intersection there has been some filling at the angles formed by the intersection of the turnpiked portions of the highways. About fourteen feet to the north of the southern boundary line of Ninth street a culvert has been placed across the turnpiked portion of Ridge road. This culvert extended about eighteen inches west of the travel on the intersection. An open ditch about two feet wide at the top, sixteen inches deep, and six feet long extended directly west from the culvert and drained water into the culvert. The traveled track over the culvert extended its full length except about a foot and one-half at either end. This culvert was forty feet long.
On the morning of September 9, 1909, the plaintiff, a physician and surgeon residing in the city of Green Bay, was. driving his automobile at a rate of speed of about eleven miles per hour south on Ridge road on his way to make a professional call in the country. The road was muddy and slippery, and to get a better foothold for his car he was driving it on the road north of the intersection with Ninth street, with the two west wheels on the grass outside of and to the west of the traveled track but still upon the turnpiked portion of the highway. Across the intersection of the highways the plaintiff took a course with his car so that he could occupy that part of the highway south of ETinth street which was relative to the traveled, track like that he had taken in approaching ETinth street. While crossing the intersection of the streets and when abont ten or twelve feet from the cnlvert the plaintiff observed the open ditch west of the culvert in the course of his car. He immediately shut off the power, applied the emergency brake, and attempted to steer his car to the east so as to avoid the ditch. It was impossible to stop the car within the distance he was from the ditch, neither was it possible to steer it far enough to the east to avoid the ditch, and the west wheels of the automobile ran into the ditch. The car was damaged and unfit for use until repaired. There was no barrier or sign at the end of the culvert or near the ditch to apprise travelers on the highway of the ditch, and the culvert and ditch were not readily observable by travelers while crossing ETinth street going south on Ridge road. The plaintiff was under the necessity of hiring a livery rig to make his calls, put in more time in making his calls, and was put to the expense of repairing his automobile.
The jury found by special verdict that the highway was insufficient at the place of accident and not reasonably safe for use by the traveling public, that the insufficiency proximately caused the injury to the plaintiff’s automobile, and that no want of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff proximately contributed to the injury. They assessed his damages at $100.
. The court was of the opinion that $60 would cover the plaintiff’s damages directly resulting from the injury to his automobile, and gave him an option to take judgment for that amount and costs or to have the verdict set aside.
This is an appeal from the judgment in plaintiff’s favor for $60 and costs.
T. P. Silverwood, for the appellant.
Eor the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of Oady, Slrehlow <& Jaseph.

Opinion:
Tbe following opinion was filed October 24, 1911:
SiebecKek, J.
The- appellant urges tbe reversal of tbe judgment in plaintiff's favor upon tbe ground that there is no evidence showing any insufficiency and want of repair of tbe highway, and urges that it appears as matter of law that tbe injury to tbe plaintiff's automobile was caused by bis contributory negligence.
Tbe evidence is undisputed that no guard, barrier, or fence bad been erected at tbe end of tbe culvert or near tbe ditch connected therewith at its west end. Tbe location of tbe culvert, tbe ditch, and tbe traveled part of tbe highway are as set forth in tbe foregoing statement. Tbe claim is made by tbe appellant that tbe evidence incontrovertibly and clearly shows that tbe city at tbe place in question maintained a reasonably safe road for public use. Tbe evidence is that there was a ditch two feet in width, sixteen inches deep, and from six to eight feet long connected with tbe culvert, which was located in Eidge road on tbe Ninth street crossing, and that tbe travel to and from tbe south over these highways at tbe crossing was about eighteen inches from tbe west end of tbe culvert. It also appears that tbe traveled track on Ninth street was close to tbe margin of tbe ditch,.and that travel over tbe .area at. tbe intersection of tbe two highways bad spread out and covered nearly tbe whole of tbe forty-foot culvert. Tbe ground at this place before tbe grading of tbe highway was almost level, having a gradual • slope southeastward. It is manifest from- tbe facts in evidence that there was no natural object to apprise travelers of tbe existence of tbe ditch and •culvert, aside from tbe open ditch itself, which was in tbe surface of tbe ground, practically level with tbe area formed by tbe intersection of these highways. There is evidence tending to show that tbe culvert was covered with earth to its end on tbe west, and that it and tbe ditch connected with it were not readily observable at a distance on account of tbe evenness and the similarity of the surface bordering both sides. It is manifest from these conditions of the highway that the ditch constituted a pit at the end of the culvert and that vehicles could not safely pass over it. The general conditions of this highway and its immediately surrounding objects, and the way in which the adjoining tracks over the intersection of the streets were being used, indicate that a pit sixteen inches deep and two feet wide at the end of the culvert' and approximately eighteen inches from the traveled track was such a menace to travelers as to constitute a serious danger to their safety.
It is argued that this does not constitute an insufficiency in the road, because the defendant had provided for public use at this point an amply wide and level traveled track of abont thirty-seven feet in width, and hence that this ditch could not render the place dangerous to travelers properly using it in the exercise of reasonable care. This overlooks an essential factor of what is a reasonably safe highway, namely, whatever may be the width and suitableness of the space actually occupied as a traveled track of a highway "there may exist dangerous defects and obstructions outside of the traveled path, depending on circumstances. Much depends on the nature and situation of the alleged obstruction [defect] and whether it is plainly to be seen or not," and whether it is so connected with the traveled track as to affect the safety of the public using it in the usual and ordinary way while exercising ordinary care. We are persuaded that the jury were fully justified in their conclusion that this unguarded pit or ditch was such a danger connected with the traveled track as to make it an insufficiency in the highway crossing and rendered it not reasonably safe for use by the traveling public within the principle of the following cases: Wheeler v. Westport, 30 Wis. 392; Seymer v. Lake, 66 Wis. 651, 29 N. W. 554; Slivitski v. Wien, 93 Wis. 460, 67 N. W. 730; Prahl v. Waupaca, 109 Wis. 299, 85 N. W. 350; Jenewein v. Irving, 122 Wis. 228, 99 N. W. 346, 903; Maxwell v. Wellington, 138 Wis. 607, 120 N. W. 505.
It is farther contended that, if the highway is regarded as insufficient, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover because it appears that he was guilty of contributory negligence which proximately contributed to cause the injury to his automobile. The court submitted the evidence upon this inquiry to the jury under proper instructions and the jury found him free from contributory negligence. The trial court upon review of the case again concluded after verdict that the question of plaintiffs contributory negligence under the evidence was properly for the jury. Counsel's contention on this issue seems to omit due consideration of the rule that the defense of contributory negligence must be affirmatively established. Seymer v. Lake, 66 Wis. 651, 29 N. W. 554; Cantwell v. Appleton, 71 Wis. 463, 37 N. W. 813; Rhyner v. Menasha, 97 Wis. 523, 73 N. W. 41. "The correct inquiry in such case . is not whether there is evidence to support the finding of the jury, because that may be supported by lack of evidence in whole or in part, but whether there is uncontroverted evidence" (Clary v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 141 Wis. 411, 123 N. W. 649) which shows plaintiff guilty of a want of ordinary care which proximately contributed to the injury. The facts mainly relied on to show plaintiff's want of ordinary care that contributed to this injury are that he approached this highway crossing by running the two wheels of his car outside of the traveled track and that he designed to do likewise after passing this crossing, that he took a course over the crossing which, had he proceeded straight forward, would have run the left front wheel into the ditch as well as the right wheel, and that he omitted to keep a lookout for the ditch or pit until he had approached it so closely that he could not turn his car so as to pass over the culvert in safety. It must be borne in mind that plaintiff was within the traveled portion of the highway at the time he first saw this pit, that be was traveling at a lawful rate of speed, and tbat tbe evidence is uncontroverted tbat be was giving bis attention to and observing tbe road at tbe crossing and to tbe south of tbe crossing; tbat be testified tbat be did not observe tbe pit until be was witbin ten or twelve feet of it; tbat be tben did all be could to stop tbe car and all be could to steer it to tbe east to avoid tbe ditch, but failed by about a foot and one-balf. It appears tbat up to tbe time be saw tbe pit be traveled upon tbe proper part of tbe highway, tbat it was difficult for travelers on tbe road to see tbe pit on account of its obscurity in tbe light of tbe conditions surrounding it, and tbat it was so connected with tbe traveled tract as to render tbe road unsafe and dangerous for travel. Tbe defective condition of tbe highway has an important bearing on tbe other facts interpreting tbe significance of tbe plaintiffs action. See Cantwell v. Appleton, 71 Wis. 463, 37 N. W. 813. To aver tbat tbe fact tbat be did not see tbe ditch in time to avoid it shows affirmatively plaintiffs contributory negligence is in substance a contradiction of tbe conclusion above reached tbat tbe road was insufficient and defective, for if coming into contact with this ditch while passing over tbe highway in tbe ordinary way of using tbe traveled part thereof is negligence, then it was no failure of duty on tbe part of tbe city to omit putting up a guard, fence, or barrier to warn tbe public of tbe existence of this pit. We have shown above tbat this must, under the adjudications, be deemed a defect by reason of tbe fact tbat it rendered tbe road not reasonably safe. Wheeler v. Westport, 30 Wis. 392. We find nothing in tbe record as to plaintiffs conduct leading to tbe irresistible conclusion tbat be was guilty of a want of ordinary care. We consider tbat the facts and circumstances disclosing tbe manner in which be used tbe highway at tbe time in question do not affirmatively establish bis contributory negligence as matter of law, and tbat tbe trial court properly submitted this issue to tbe jury.
There is no error in tbe record.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.
The following opinion was filed November 8, 1911: