Zenner v. Fischer

Appellant contends that the evidence presents a case involving the duties of a “passing” motorist rather than a “following” one and that the trial court therefore erred in applying the rule of Phillips v. Haring (1952), 262 Wis. 174, 180, 54 N. W. (2d) 200, where it was said:

“It is the duty of the driver of the following car, under circumstances where as here he has ample opportunity to do so, to have his car under such control or to maintain such a distance behind the preceding vehicle as will enable him to stop his car and avoid a collision.”

The facts of the Phillips Case are very similar…