Willenbring v. Borkenhagen
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.
Because we reverse on the first ground and reinstate the jury’s verdict, we do not consider the requests for new trial. The sole issue considered on this appeal is whether the trial court was justified in changing the jury’s determination of respondent’s negligence, so as to find no negligence on her part.
It is- undisputed that a minor seven years old or older is capable of being negligent. Sec. 328.44, Stats. We have often pointed out, “The degree of care required of a child depends upon his age, capacity, discretion, knowledge, and experience.” Rossow v. Lathrop (1963), 20 Wis. (2d) 658,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Bleyer v. GrossWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Blahnik v. DaxWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Mossak v. PfostWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
- Van Galder v. SnyderWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
- Brice v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bergmann v. Insurance Company of North AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- Burch v. American Family Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1992
- Sylvester v. MeditzDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1968
- Willenbring v. BorkenhagenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966