Legal Opinion

Rice v. Gruetzmacher

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1965PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.

The problem before us is whether a forklift is a motor vehicle under the quoted direct-action statutes. If it is, its insurer can be named as a party defendant in this lawsuit. The trial court concluded that there were questions of fact surrounding such determination and, therefore, denied the insurer’s request for summary judgment. The Wisconsin statutes contain various definitions of “motor vehicle” and “vehicle:”

“340.01 (35) 'Motor vehicle’ means a vehicle which is self-propelled, including a trackless trolley bus.”
“340.01 (74) ‘Vehicle’ means every device in, upon or by which any person…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Smedley v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Connell v. LuckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Snorek v. BoyleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Mut. Ins. Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Sambs v. NowakWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange v. SpaffordMichigan Court of Appeals · 1977
  3. Nelson v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Gauer v. GauerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  5. D'ANGELO v. Cornell Paperboard Products Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1967

11 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