Legal Opinion · Dissent

Millonig v. Bakken

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1983No. 81-2158Published

1Dissent

(dissenting). The only liability issue in this case was whether the defendant was negligent. It was stipulated that the plaintiff-driver was not negligent. Since the jury found the defendant non-negligent, the accident must be categorized as an unavoidable accident or an “act of God or nature” case. Black’s Law Dictionary in defining “accident” refers the reader to “act of God” when negligence is not involved. Given the facts in this case, I sincerely doubt this court wants to apply the theory that such incidents on icy roads can occur without anyone’s fault.

Consider the scenario of this case…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Davis v. SkilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Zillmer v. MiglautschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Rusch v. Sentinel-News Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Czerniakowski v. National Ice & Coal Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Smith v. PabstWisconsin Supreme Court · 1939

19 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