Legal Opinion

Huss v. Vande Hey

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 30, 1965PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.

Evidence as to< Future Pain and Suffering.

In its instructions, the trial court informed the jurors that in determining the damages they could consider future pain and suffering. It is the contention of the appellants on this appeal that there was no adequate medical evidence upon which the jury could make a finding of future pain and suffering.

The appellants also point out that the trial court declined to instruct the jury regarding the absence of any permanent injuries. Here, too, it is urged by the appellants that the record is devoid of medical proof that any of Mr. Huss’ injuries would be…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Powers v. Allstate InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Yorston v. PennellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Lucas v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Diemel v. WeirichWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Fehrman v. SmirlWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Cramer v. Theda Clark Memorial HospitalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Netzel v. State Sand & Gravel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Meena v. WilburnMississippi Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Hoeft v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Noland v. Mutual of Omaha InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973

7 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