Lisowski v. Milwaukee Automobile Mutual Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.
Several issues arise concerning the instructions given to the jury which the defendants argue were prejudicial “plaintiff instructions.” The trial court instructed on a driver’s duty when children are present, Form 1045, Wis. J I — Civil, Part I. Giving of this instruction was error. This is not a case in which the driver had actual notice that children were playing in the area, as in Hartzheim v. Smith (1941), 238 Wis. 55, 298 N. W. 196, Hanes v. Hermsen (1931), 205 Wis. 16, 236 N. W. 646, and Ruka v. Zierer (1928), 195 Wis. 285, 218 N. W. 358. Nor were there any special facts which would…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Puhl v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
- Crawley v. HillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
- Holtz v. FogartyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Ruka v. ZiererWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
- Oelke v. EarleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Thoreson v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
- Boynton Cab Co. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- Christensen v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Shier v. FreedmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Mainz v. LundWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.