Coenen v. Van Handel

Defendants contend that to entitle plaintiffs to recover they must show more than the mere fact of skidding ; that they have failed to produce evidence of a wrongful act or omission on the part of defendant driver which caused the accident, and that therefore the trial court properly ignored the jury’s finding. They cite Linden v. Miller, 172 Wis. 20, 177 N. W. 909; Wobosel v. Lee, 209 Wis. 51, 243 N. W. 425; Maltby v. Thiel, 224 Wis. 648, 272 N. W. 848, and Churchill v. Brock, 264 Wis. 23, 58 N. W. (2d) 290, as authority for their contention. Out of these cases must be read the rule that…