Rock v. Sarazen
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.
The main contention of the defendant is that upon the evidence the< plaintiffs were guilty of negligence contributing to their injuries as matter of law. The undisputed evidence shows that the defendant was driving a truck north on an arterial highway paved with concrete. The plaintiff was driving an automobile west on a crossroad intending to tupi south at the intersection with the arterial. There was a stop sign at the arterial which under the statute, sec. 89.69, required the plaintiff to stop before entering the intersection. According to the testimony of *128the plaintiff and the other…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State ex rel. Wisconsin Allied Truck Owners Ass'n v. Public Service CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Mertens v. Lake Shore Yellow Cab & Transfer Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
- Tomberlin v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Cline v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Thieme v. WeykerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Whyte v. LindblomWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Lind v. LundWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Cherney v. SimonisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
- Crane v. WeberWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Lake to Lake Dairy Co-Operative v. AndrewsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.