
    Whyte (Harriet) by guardian ad litem, Respondent, vs. Lindblom and another, Appellants.
    
      May 9
    
    September 11, 1934.
    
    For the appellants there were briefs by Hammond & Jones of Kenosha, and oral argument by Walter W. Hammond.
    
    For the respondent there was a brief by Randall, Cavanagh, Stephenson & Mittelstaed of Kenosha, and oral argument by Roy S. Stephenson.
    
   The following opinion was filed June 5, 1934:

Fairchild, J.

The facts in this case are set forth in the companion case of Jessel S. Whyte v. Lindblom, ante, p. 21, 255 N. W. 265, 256 N. W. 244. The driver of the car failed to make proper observations before entering an intersection, and is guilty of a failure to maintain a proper lookout. The rule in the companion case controls this case. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and a new trial granted.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.

The following memorandum was filed September 11, 1934:

Per Curiam

(on motion for rehearing). Motion for rehearing denied. We hold that the negligence of the plaintiff is so related to the collision involved in the case as to be a cause therefor. The mandate heretofore entered is amended so as to provide that the new trial shall be confined to the comparison of the negligence of the plaintiff and defendant and an assessment of damages in accordance therewith. Neither party to have costs on motion for rehearing.

A motion to clarify the mandate was denied, without costs, on October 9, 1934.  