Butcher v. City of Racine

The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in not changing the jury’s answer to the third and seventh questions of the special verdict relating fo proximate cause; that it erred in changing the jury’s answer to the fourth question of the special verdict finding plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence. It is also claimed that plaintiff’s *545negligence is not a bar to recovery in this case, relying upon the rule announced in Reiter v. Grober, 173 Wis. 493, 181 N. W. 739. Other errors are also assigned, but owing to the view taken of the case by this court it does not become necessarjr…