Legal Opinion

Biersach v. Wechselberg

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1931PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

It is first urged that by continuing to ride with the defendant Wechselberg and especially the failure of the plaintiff to leave the car at Koeller’s dance hall, plaintiff assumed the risk due to Wechselberg’s careless driving as a matter of law. In view of the fact that there must be a new trial we shall not discuss the evidence, it being considered that there is evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict.

It is next urged that the trial court erred in instructing the jury in respect to the assumption of risk and contributory negligence. It is to be noted that the matter of contributory…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sommerfield v. FluryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Fontaine v. FontaineWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Berrafato v. ExnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Will v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Knauer v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1914

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Landrum v. RoddyNebraska Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Packard v. QuesnelSupreme Court of Vermont · 1941
  3. McCauley v. International Trading Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Scory v. LaFaveWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Haase v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of WisconsinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API