Schinke v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCurrie, J.
The sole issue upon this appeal is whether there is credible evidence to sustain the finding of the jury that the plaintiff guest assumed the risk of her husband’s negligent speed.
In order that a guest can be held to have assumed the risk of the host’s negligence the evidence must establish these three factors: (1) A hazard or danger inconsistent with the safety of the guest; (2) knowledge and appreciation of the hazard by the guest; and (3) acquiescence or a willingness to proceed in the face of danger. Knipfer v. Shaw (1933), 210 Wis. 617, 621, 246 N. W. 328, 247 N. W. 320, and Ven Rooy v.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Knipfer v. ShawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Krause v. HallWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
- Biersach v. WechselbergWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Stewart v. FarleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
- Reynolds v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bulatao v. Kauai Motors, Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1965
- Theisen v. Milwaukee Automobile Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Baird v. CorneliusWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Baird v. CorneliusWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Bulatao v. Kauai Motors, Ltd.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1965
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.