Metz v. Rath

On this appeal we are confronted with the following issues:(1) Is there any credible evidence to sustain the jury’s findings that the defendant Rath was guilty of causal negligence as to both lookout and speed?(2) Did the trial court err in failing to change the jury’s answer of “No” to “Yes” to the question which inquired as to whether the pedestrian Metz’s negligence as to lookout was a substantial factor in causing the accident ?(3) Was Metz’s negligence' equal to or greater than that of Rath as a matter of law ?(4) Did the trial court err in instructing the jury that the sudden-emergency…