Court Opinion

ID: 9696984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:02:59.629718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:43.960987
License: Public Domain

Currie, Hallows, and Wilkie, JJ.
(dissenting). We respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion holding that the giving of the emergency instruction, although in error, was not prejudicial to the appellants and, therefore, is not a proper ground for awarding a new trial. We are of the opinion that the giving of the emergency instruction was not only erroneous, as the majority concedes, but it was highly prejudicial to Hurth and his insurer.
The majority summarizes the testimony of both drivers on the question of lookout at the intersection. Hurth stated that he first saw the Borowske car approaching from the south when it was approximately 300 feet from the intersection and Hurth was some 250 to 275 feet west of that intersection. He made this observation through a gap in the brush on the southwest corner of the intersection. Hurth again saw the Borowske vehicle when Hurth was approximately 50 to 75 feet west of the intersection and when, at that point, Borowske’s car was a length and a half from the intersection. It is undisputed that Hurth then applied his brakes and skidded for at least 70 feet before the collision in the intersection. Hurth’s testimony thus would not suggest to the jury that he was confronted with an emergency when he first saw the Borowske car.
*105On the other hand Borowske testified that he did not see the Hurth vehicle until he entered the intersection. He claimed that his vision was obscured to the west as he approached the intersection because of the presence of the willows and tag elders, although Hurth was able to see the Borowske car through this brush. Borowske followed this testimony with this statement, “When I saw him coming, I had to put it in reverse or go ahead, so I stepped on the gas and tried to get across the intersection.” The total effect of this testimony of Borowske is to convey the impression to the jury that when he first saw the Hurth car he was confronted with an emergency.
On this record it is clear that Borowske was negligent as to lookout and, because of .his own negligence in this regard, was not entitled to the benefit of the emergency instruction. The majority concludes that the instruction applied to both parties and that, therefore, although given in error, it did not work any prejudice on Hurth and his insurer. We disagree. As a matter of law Hurth was never confronted with an emergency and has never so contended. Borowske’s own negligence was a definite contributing factor to the collision and, therefore, he was not entitled to the emergency instruction. Under these circumstances we cannot agree that the instruction applied equally to the two parties and favored neither. It seems to us clear that the result of giving the instruction was all to the benefit of Borowske because it was he and not Hurth who testified that he was faced with an emergency. Thus it was prejudicial because of the probability that it affected the jury’s comparison of negligence.
Whether or not the vision at that corner was obstructed makes no difference as to the prejudicial nature of the erroneous instruction. Borowske himself admits that he did not see Hurth until he entered the intersection and he would either be negligent as to lookout because he did not see what *106he obviously could have seen through the brush if the jury concluded there was not a complete obstruction, or, on the other hand, he would be guilty of negligence as to speed if he proceeded as he did into a blind intersection. In either event, Borowske’s own negligence would deprive him of the right to the emergency instruction. See Baird v. Cornelius (1961), 12 Wis. (2d) 284, 107 N. W. (2d) 278. Because of this error we would reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial on all issues.