The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in not changing the jury’s answer to the third and sеventh questions of the special verdict relating fo proximate cause; that it erred in changing the jury’s answer to the fourth question of the special verdict finding plаintiff guilty of contributory negligence. It is also claimed that plaintiff’s
The jury’s answers to the second and sixth questions are the only ones plaintiff can rely upon to sustain а judgment in his favor. These answers were, as a matter 'of law, not warranted by the evidence. The evidence shows that the barrier placed across the road near the entrance to the bridge could be plainly seen at the intersection of West Sixth street and Kinzie avenue even on the morning of the accident, which was somewhat misty. It is true the plaintiff testifies that he did not see it till he had traveled one third or one half the distance. But then he plainly saw it, and he had from 200 to 156 feet to travel before he reached the bridge, and he was going only ten miles an hour. The сonditions that obtained gave him ample time to turn safely onto Race street,-the turn being only at an angle of 134 degrees and the street being level and the width of an ordinary street. There is no duty devolving upon those in charge of highways to post notices of conditions of the road some distance therefrom when the barriеr itself gives ample and timely warning. Raymond v. Sauk County,
Perhaps the reason why the jury answered questions 2 and 6 “Yes” was owing to a misdirection by the court in its instruction under question 2. The court said:
“It appears that at the time in question the streets were generally very icy by reason of rain falling in the month of January, on the day of and the day before the aсcident, causing a glassy covering on the streets. ... It was not reasonably prevеntable and had existed for too short a time to enable the city to counteract it. But the city was chargeable with notice that such a condition may naturаlly arise during the winter season, and it should so construct and maintain its streets as to makе them reasonably safe for public travel under such a condition.”
The instruction to the effect that the city “should so construct and maintain its streets as to make thеm reasonably safe for public travel under such a condition” was clearly erroneous. No such duty devolves upon those in charge of highways and streets, because it is impossible to discharge under climatic conditions that exist in Wisconsin. Streеts and highways cannot be so constructed as to be reasonably safe for travel under icy conditions. The statute provides for a reasonable time for counteracting icy conditions before liability attaches because thereof. The jury were told the sixth question was very similar to the second but not the same. But whether or not this error in the instruction caused the affirmative answers, it is clear that therе was no negligence on the part of the defendant in the construction or maintenance of its streets, and therefore no recovery can be had.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.