Carlson v. Strasser

Respondent insists that upon his approaching the road he looked for oncoming cars and saw nothing to interfere with his entrance into the highway; that his observation was timely and thorough. There is testimony to sustain his claim, but there is testimony tending to- establish a want of ordinary care in the matter of lookout, and the jury found that the want of ordinary care in that particular existed, and that it was a cause of the damage suffered by appellant. But the special verdict further required the jury to answer other questions in a measure covering material matters relating to…