Legal Opinion

Eisenhut v. Eisenhut

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 10, 1933PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The following opinion was filed May 9, 1933:

Fowler, J.

The appellant claims that the answers in the verdict as to assumption of risk should have been changed from “No” to “Yes” and that judgment should have been entered dismissing the complaint upon his motions therefor made after return of the verdict.

This court is committed to the doctrine that a guest in an automobile assumes the risks incident to the skill of the driver. “If the host driving the car conscientiously exercises the skill possessed by him in handling the car in emergencies,” the guest has no right to demand more. The guest…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cleary v. EckartWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Poneitowcki v. HarresWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Fontaine v. FontaineWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Hensel v. Hensel Yellow Cab Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Harter v. DickmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Olson v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Kudrna v. AdamskiOregon Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Richards v. ParksCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1935
  4. Braatz v. Continental Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Wittrock v. NewcomSupreme Court of Iowa · 1938

17 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