McCarty v. Weber
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBeowN, J.
There is evidence to sustain all the findings. The most controversial ot these concerns Dr. Finnegan’s lookout. If there is no evidence to sustain that finding then the case must be sent back for new trial because the finding affects the proportions of negligence. The appellant submits that no one can say what Dr. Finnegan saw or did not see, and contends that since he is dead he is presumed to have exercised due care and the mere fact that he collided with the milk truck is not evidence that he was negligent in lookout. However, the weaving of the Finnegan car in and out of its own traffic…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Haase v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of WisconsinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
- Reichert v. Rex Accessories Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- De Keuster v. Green Bay & Western RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
3Cited by18 opinions
- Wells v. Dairyland Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
- Fringer v. VenemaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Sperbeck v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- Schlichting v. SchlichtingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Weber v. MayerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.