
    Wilcox, Respondent, vs. Pethke and another, Appellants.
    
      September 16
    
    October 12, 1948.
    
    For the appellants there was a brief by Lehner & Lehner, Adolph P. Lehner, and Howard N. Lehner, all of Oconto Falls, and Byrne, Bubolz & Spanagel of Appleton,' and oral argument by Howard N. Lehner.
    
    For the respondent there was a brief by William F. Morris, and oral argument by Albert S. Vanden Heuvil, both of West De Pere. .
   Rosenberry, C. J.

The principal contention of the defendants upon this appeal is that the evidence does not sustain the findings of the jury, which it is claimed are contrary to the physical facts. The defendants moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied. The court said:

“I think the inquiry goes to the position of the cars at the time of the collision as distinguished from the position of the cars at and immediately before the collision, which would involve the question of control and management and lookout of the drivers,” and denied the motion.

We have carefully examined the record and arguments of counsel and no useful purpose would be served by setting out a statement of facts. It is considered that the court was clearly right at the close of all the evidence in submitting the case to the jury and in entering judgment on the verdict.

The defendants also contend that the apportionment of negligence by the jury is grossly disproportionate and contrary to the great weight of the credible evidence. We find nothing in the record to support this contention which is based substantially upon the same factual basis as that upon which the defendants claimed that the evidence did not sustain the finding-of the jury. The finding of the jury being sustained as to the negligence of the parties, the contention of the defendants that the apportionment of the negligence is disproportionate also fails.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.  