Drakenberg v. Knight

The evidence is undisputed that although it was the duty of defendant Hale to pass to the right of the intersection of the two streets he passed to the left; thus cutting the comer and violating sub. 1, sec. 1636 — 49b, Stats. No excuse for this appears in the testimony, and it is plain that Hale was guilty of negligence. Haggerty v. Rain, 177 Wis. 374, 186 N. W. 1017.

It is contended, however, by defendants’ counsel that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence contributing to the injury and that the negligence of defendant was not the proximate cause. The principal ground assigned for this…