Berhow v. Kroack
Supreme Court of Iowa
1DissentReynoldson, Justice
The majority opinion treats plaintiff’s petition as purely negligence (tort) action *386and therefore regards the bailor-bailee relationship as wholly immaterial to the application of the tort principles involved. The rigid Aristotelian logic evidenced by the trial court and quoted by the majority is unnecessary and inappropriate to a case of this kind.
Had Berhow sued only the bailor Jens-vold it is inconceivable the resulting posture of the case would have generated this result. But because Berhow exercised his right to sue both Jensvold and Kroack, the driver of the colliding auto, it does not…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hormel v. HelveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Kisling v. ThiermanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1932
- Francis C. O'Neill and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. United States v. Ambrose-Augusterfer Corporation, Third-Party Francis C. O'NeillCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
- Tierstein v. LichtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Scharf, Admx. v. Gardner Cartage Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1953
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.