There was considerable conflict in the testimony аs to how the collision occurred, and the questions as to negligence were properly for thе jury. However, the answers to question 2 (causation) and question 6 (com *515 parison of negligence) cаnnot stand together. The verdict is inconsistent.
If, in answering quеstion 2, the jury had found Igl’s negligence as to lookout and control causal, this court would have to sustain thе finding, since there is ample evidence upon whiсh the jury could have so found. The case at bar diffеrs from
Forbes v. Forbes,
The problem facing us here is that which was presented in
Mitchell v. Williams
(1951),
“Although the jury found Mitchell negligent as to speed, it found specifically that such speed was not an efficient cause which produced the collision. In spite of that finding it apportioned twenty per cеnt of the combined negligence to the plaintiff George Mitchell. This was an inconsistent verdict, and a nеw trial is required.”
There is no contest as to plaintiff Wojan’s cause of action. Her damages havе been properly established and the verdict as to her is not inconsistent. The first judgment in Case No. 47 is therefоre affirmed. See
Scharine
v.
Huebsch
(1931),
“When . . . the plaintiff has recovеred a verdict against the original defendant his rights in his aсtion are established, and we see no reasоn why he' may not then have judgment in his action and the litigatiоn end as to him, and the defendants p'o on with the litigation of thе issue in the action between themselves, and judgment bе subsequently entered determining their rights.”
The judgment for Igl against thе plaintiff Wojan for costs, however, must await the outcome of the new trial in Case No. 48. It is therefore set aside.
*516 The judgment of Igl against the plaintiff Butler in Case No. 48 is reversed and a new trial ordered.
Since a new trial is necessary, it will serve no purpose tо go into a detailed discussion, of the evidencе or other issues raised on this appeal. However, we wish to call attention to the fact that it wаs improper for respondent’s attorney to рersist in mentioning that an insurance company was invоlved in this matter, and we trust that such remarks will not be repеated on the new trial.
By the Court. — The judgment in favor of plaintiff in Cаse No. 47 is affirmed so far as it affects the defendants Butler and the Insurance Company; the judgment for costs against plaintiff is set aside; the issue of contribution is thе only issue to be tried in Case No. 47. The judgment in Case No. 48 is reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.