¶1 There was a collision on the highway between two trucks traveling in opposite directions. The plaintiff was driving one truck, which will be referred to as the “plaintiff’s truck/’ and the defendant the other, which will be re *281 ferred to as the “defendant’s truck.” On trial a jury found by special verdict that the defendant driver was causally negligent, (1) with respect to position on the highway; (2) with respect to lookout; (3) with respect to management and control. Precisely the same questions were submitted in respect to the plaintiff driver, and the jury found that he was not negligent in any of said respects. The court changed the answers to the questions covering the defendant’s negligence and entered judgment dismissing the complaint.
¶2 The only point raised by the appellant is that the court erred in changing the answers to the questions of the verdict because the answers returned by the jury are supported by the evidence.
¶3 The court is of opinion that the evidence supports the verdict. It is undisputed that the left front of the plaintiff’s truck collided with the left side of.the defendant’s truck. The testimony of the plaintiff, unless contrary to the physical facts, supports the verdict. The trial court held that the proved physical facts show conclusively that when the collision occurred the plaintiff’s truck was partially on its left and the defendant’s truck wholly on its right side of the road, and that this being so the plaintiff was and the defendant was not causally negligent. The physical fact relied on is that marks made on the road by the defendant’s truck from the place of collision to the place where it came to rest were wholly on its side of the road and that marks made by the plaintiff’s truck from the place of collision to the place where it came to rest straddled the center line of the road. The court is of opinion that the evidence is in dispute as to the marks relied on being made by the two cars. Mr. Justice Barlow and the writer-are of opinion that there is no material dispute as to this matter. In this situation the judgment must be reversed with directions to restore the answers of the jury to the questions of the verdict and to enter judgment for the plaintiff.
¶4*282 By the Court. — The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to restore the answers of the jury to the questions of the verdict and enter judgment for the amount of dama'ges found by the jury with costs.
¶5 {dissenting). Sec. 270.49 (1), Stats., as we all agree, commits to the discretion of this court a determination whether cases described by it shall be remanded to have the trial court pass upon motions for a new trial. This being true, it seems to me that there must be something-in the record other than the fact that the jury question was a close one to warrant a remand for the purposes indicated by the statute. I discover nothing in this case upon which to exercise such a discretion. The case was ably tried on both sides. There were no erroneous rulings and nothing on which to conclude that the jury was biased. It follows that the ruling will be a precedent for sending every such case back for action upon the motion for new trial and this merely because the issue of fact is close. In addition, by sending the case back for the trial court to pass upon motions for a new trial, we virtually commit ourselves to sustain an order for *289 a new trial if entered. The net results will not contribute to the speedy or economical administration of justice.