Legal Opinion

Harter v. Dickman

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1932PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNelson, J.

The jury found that the defendant was not negligent in operating his automobile at and just previous to the time of the accident in respect to control, but found that the defendant was negligent at such time “in respect to the control at which he drove so as to increase the danger to the plaintiff beyond which the plaintiff ought to have reasonably expected in riding with the defendant.” That the verdict as rendered was inconsistent there can be no doubt.

The verdict as rendered could not support a judgment, and a new trial should have been granted unless the only inference which the evidence…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Cleary v. EckartWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Sommerfield v. FluryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Olson v. HermansenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Poneitowcki v. HarresWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Waters v. MarkhamWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Hensel v. Hensel Yellow Cab Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Young v. Nunn, Bush & Weldon Shoe Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Eisenhut v. EisenhutWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Forecki v. KohlbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Georgeson v. NielsenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934

14 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