Legal Opinion · Dissent

Oshogay v. Schultz

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1950Published

1DissentFairchild, J.

Negligence, in its civil relations, means want of ordinary care. Intent is not an element of legal negligence. See Wharton, Negligence (2d ed.), p. 9, sec. 11; Shearman & Redfield, Negligence (3d ed.), p. 4, sec. 2. Contributory negligence may be a defense, but it does not have a place in an intended assault and battery case. The effect of the decision of the majority will be to bring confusion into our law of negligence. The act styled as negligent was an intentional act, not a thoughtless or negligent act, and may be described in the language used in 4 Am. Jur., Assault and Battery, p. 143,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Zimmerman v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1914

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API