Page v. Page
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtEschweiler, J.
We are satisfied that judgment should have been directed for the defendant in this case under the rule now adopted in this state that the driver of an automobile on the public highway owes to the gratuitous guest the duty to exercise ordinary care not to increase the danger to the guest or to create a new danger. Cleary v. Eckart, 191 Wis. 114, 117, 210 N. W. 267, 51 A. L. R. 576, and the subsequent cases of Olson v. Hermansen, 196 Wis. 614, 619, 220 N. W. 203, and Krueger v. Krueger, 197 Wis. 588, 222 N. W. 784. See, also, note in 61 A. L. R. 1252.
In this case the sole negligence found by…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cleary v. EckartWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
- Olson v. HermansenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
- Krueger v. KruegerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
3Cited by7 opinions
- Knipfer v. ShawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Young v. Nunn, Bush & Weldon Shoe Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Waters v. MarkhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Gill, Jr., a Minor v. ArthurOhio Court of Appeals · 1941
- Royer v. SaeckerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.