Thе appellants Maxfield and his insurance carrier contend on this appeal that there is no credible evidence to sustain the jury’s finding of causal negligence as to speed on the part of Maxfield. On the other hand, the defendants Earle and American Automobile Insurance Company maintain that it was error for the trial court not to have сhanged the answer “No” to-“Yes” made by the jury
*482
to the question which inquired as to whether the negligent lookout of Maxfield was an efficient cause of the collision. Inasmuch as the correction of said alleged error so raised by the defendants Earle and her insuranсe carrier would support the judgment appealed from, it was not necessary for said defendants to file any motion for review in order to raise such issue here. Sec. 274.12 (2), Stаts.;
State v. Biller
(1952),
In so far as the questions raised on this appeal are concerned, the jury’s answers to the comparative-negligence question are mere surplusage, becаuse if there was any causal negligence on the part of Maxfield the judgment of cоntribution appealed from must be affirmed. Our review of the testimony in the record leads to the inescapable conclusion that Maxfield’s negligence as to lookout wаs causal as a matter of law. In view of this conclusion it becomes unnecessary to pass on the question raised by the appellants as to Maxfield’s speed, and we can perceive of no useful purpose to be gained in discussing such issue.
Both drivers testified that immediately prior to the accident their vehicles were being operated at a speed of 20 to 25 miles per hour. At the trial Maxfield testified that he made his first observation to the right, which was the direction from which the Earle car was approaching, when he was about one third of a block south of the intersection, but that the newspapеr shack obstructed his view to the east. However, at his adverse examination he had testified that he made his first observation to the east when his truck was but 10 or 15 feet south of the south сurb line of the intersection. Maxfield further testified that he made no further observation to his right оr east until he was about at the center of the intersection, or á few feet south therеof, and that he did not see the Earle automobile until the moment of the colli *483 sion. The frоnt of the Maxfield truck struck the left side of the Earle automobile.
On this appeal we must accept as a verity the jury’s finding with respect to Maxfield having proceeded into thе intersection with the traffic lights showing green as to traffic moving on North Seventh street and red аs to vehicles traveling on West Center street. However, even though Maxfield thereby had thе right of way over the Earle automobile, it was still Maxfield’s duty to maintain a proper loоkout as' to vehicles approaching the intersection from his right on West Center street.
Bailey v. Zwirowski
(1954),
If, when Maxfield made his first observation to the east on approaching the intersection, the newspaper shack so obstructed his vision as to prevent him from seeing the аpproaching Earle car, then it was his duty to make a further observation to the east at a point which would have enabled him to take effective steps to avoid a collision. Bailey v. Zwirowski, supra. This Maxfield failed to do according to his own testimony.
In determining whether the found' negligence of Maxfield as to lookout constitutеd a proximate cause of the collision as a matter of law, the test to be аpplied is whether such negligence was a substantial factor in producing such collision.
Pfeifer v. Standard Gateway Theater, Inc.
(1952),
For other decisions by this court, where the jury in an intersection accident found negligence as to lookout as to
*484
one of the parties and also found such negligenсe not to be causal, and this court held that such negligence was causal as a mаtter of law, see
Peterson v. Simms
(1926),
The causal negligence of Maxfield as to lookout supports the judgment for contribution against Maxfield and his insurance carrier, and, therefore, such judgment must be affirmed.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.