Legal Opinion

Pagel v. Kees

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1964PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.

The first contention made by Kees is the negligence of Pagel as a matter of law was at least equal to his negligence. Since neither Pagel nor Kees was able to testify as to lookout immediately prior to the collision be cause of amnesia, both could be found guilty of causal negligence, but in so finding under an ultimate-fact verdict, the jury could consider them guilty as to either lookout or management and control, but not as to both, and the jury was so instructed. Winston v. Weiner (1958), 2 Wis. (2d) 584, 592, 87 N. W. (2d) 292. With an ultimate-fact verdict, it is impossible for a…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Rudzinski v. Warner Theatres, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Rodenkirch v. JohnsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Wm. H. Heinemann Creameries, Inc. v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Vogel v. VettingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Smith v. Rural Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Anderson v. MSI Preferred InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Department of Natural Resources v. City of ClintonvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  3. City of Milwaukee v. BerryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Diedrick v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Schoenauer v. WendingerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971

6 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