Geis v. Hirth
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.
The plaintiff, Miss Geis, contends she is entitled to a new trial because it was prejudicial error not to give the requested instructions and, further, that a new trial should be granted in the interests of justice because of the form of the verdict.
“The application of the emergency rule rests upon the psychological fact that the time which elapses between the creation of the danger and the impact is too short under the particular circumstances to allow an intelligent or deliberate choice of action in response to the realization of danger.” 3 The emergency rule is designed to avoid penalizing…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Schulz v. General Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
- Shaw v. WuttkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Baird v. CorneliusWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Cook v. ThomasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Kempfer v. BoisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Chart Ex Rel. Sommer v. General Motors Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- Lutz v. Shelby Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- Zillmer v. MiglautschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Chille v. HowellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Menge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.