Tesch v. Wisconsin Public Service Corp.

There was evidence that Lepak did not see Tesch, or at least pay any attention to him, and that he did not blow his horn. We agree with the trial court that neither of those failures could have constituted causal negligence in producing this collision. The horn would have served only as a warning to Schmidt, and Lepak’s duties with respect to Wirtz were no greater by reason of the apnroach of Tesch.

The more important questions, on which we also agree with the trial court, are:

1. Whether Lepak could have been found negligent with respect to lookout to the rear, or management and control and,

2.…