Wojciuk v. United States Rubber Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
Two issues are presented on this appeal: (1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in not allowing the plaintiffs’ witness, Dr. Alfred Schmidt, to testify as an expert? (2) Did the trial court err in directing verdict in favor of the respective defendants?
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in not allowing the plaintiffs’ witness, Dr. Alfred Schmidt, to testify as an expert?
“The question of whether a witness possesses sufficient knowledge to qualify as an expert is generally one for the trial court, and unless it appears that in its determination the court is guilty of an abuse of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Marsh Wood Products Co. v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Gilson v. Drees Bros.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- MacK Trucks, Inc. v. SundeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Kreyer v. FARMERS'CO-OPERATIVE LUMBER CO.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Ryan v. Zweck-Wollenberg Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- All-Tech Telecom, Inc. v. Amway CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
- Mays v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1983
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1978
- Garst v. General Motors CorporationSupreme Court of Kansas · 1971
- Stewart v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.