Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brunette v. Dade
Citations: 25 Wis. 2d 617; 131 N.W.2d 340; 1964 Wisc. LEXIS 608
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; November 24, 1964; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed the case of Brunette v. Dade, where the trial court found Mr. Brunette causally negligent for failing to yield the right-of-way. The appellants argued that Mrs. Dade's complete stop at the intersection constituted a waiver of her right-of-way, although they acknowledged that right-of-way is a statutory concept that cannot be transferred between drivers. The court clarified that under Sec. 346.18, Stats., the vehicle on the left (Brunette) must yield to the vehicle on the right (Dade), unless the right-of-way is forfeited due to unlawful speed. The court rejected the appellants' interpretation that stopping unnecessarily could also forfeit right-of-way, affirming the trial court's ruling that Brunette was negligent. Regarding Brunette's lookout negligence, he suffered amnesia from the accident and could not recall the events leading up to it. Although Mrs. Dade did not see Brunette's motorcycle until the collision and testified that she was moving slowly, the jury found Brunette negligent. The court noted that there was credible evidence supporting the jury's decision, including the lack of skid marks or attempts by Brunette to stop before the collision. The court referenced a precedent indicating that a driver unable to testify about their lookout due to amnesia typically cannot be deemed negligent for both lookout and control. Mr. Brunette's negligence is characterized as a failure of lookout rather than management and control, as he collided with Mrs. Dade's slow-moving vehicle without attempting to stop, evidenced by the absence of skid marks. The jury inferred that he did not see her car, a conclusion deemed legally sound despite the limited direct evidence. Legal precedents affirm that findings supported by credible evidence, even if scant, should not be disturbed. The trial court correctly instructed the jury to disregard arguments regarding the presumption of due care, as Mr. Brunette's established negligence in failing to yield right-of-way negated any presumption he might have enjoyed. The court emphasized that once evidence suggesting negligence is presented, any presumption of due care is eliminated and should not be considered by the jury. The judgment affirming Mr. Brunette's negligence was upheld.