Ackley v. Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, C. J.
The instructions to the jury are of particular concern upon. this appeal. The portions specifically challenged by appellant as erroneous bear a direct relation to the responsibility resting upon the driver of respondent’s car. The _ appellant’s driver was adjudged to have contributed the greater portion of the total negligence causing the collision. The jury, by the answers in the special verdict, found his proportion to be 80 per cent and respondent’s 20 per cent. The evidence clearly shows that each driver, as he approached the point of collision, invaded the other’s lane of travel. The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Yerkes v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Schmidt v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Kaestner v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
3Cited by9 opinions
- Savina v. Wisconsin Gas Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Winter v. MooreSupreme Court of Iowa · 1963
- Runjo v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1995
- Kwosek v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Frankovis v. Klug & Smith Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.