Opinion ID: 1968391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff.

Text: Before the verdict was submitted to the jury, defendant's counsel requested that the special verdict contain questions inquiring whether plaintiff Jensen was causally negligent with respect to lookout. The trial court refused this request. Plaintiff Jensen testified that she was seated on the right side of the front seat of the Stanley car looking straight ahead. The highway was straight for a considerable distance both to the north and south of the point of collision. She also testified, however, that she did not see the lights of the Gustafson car until it was right in front of us. She was then asked this question and gave this answer:  Q. And by that you mean practically on top of you? A. Before I realized it was right in the way. While this testimony would support a finding that she was negligent in not having seen the headlights of the oncoming Gustafson car long before she did, there is no evidence upon which to base a finding that this negligence was causal. There is a complete absence of any evidence that either car was in the lane of the other at a time prior to the collision sufficient to enable plaintiff Jensen to have voiced a timely warning to Stanley. In the absence of evidence that Edna Jensen had such an opportunity to timely recognize the danger of collision and to warn the host-driver, she could not have been found guilty of causal negligence as to lookout. Cf. Lampertius v. Chmielewski (1959), 6 Wis. (2d) 555, 560, 95 N. W. (2d) 435.