Legal Opinion

Hillside Garage & Transit Co. v. Pflittner

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1929PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFritz, J.

Plaintiff contends that sec. 85.18 (4), Stats., was enacted for the purpose of protecting life and limb of persons; that consequently, because of defendants’ violation of that statute, they are guilty, as a matter of law, of wil-fully injuring another or of gross negligence; and that, therefore, contributory negligence of plaintiff’s driver does not bar plaintiff’s recovery of damages. That contention is based on the cases of Pizzo v. Wiemann, 149 Wis. 235, 134 *28N. W. 899, and Pinoza v. Northern C. Co. 152 Wis. 473, 140 N. W. 84.

These cases, as this court said in Ludke v. Burck, 160 Wis. 440,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Bentson v. BrownWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Clemens v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Hopkins v. DroppersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Pinoza v. Northern Chair Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Pizzo v. WiemannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Harter v. DickmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Roswell v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Steubing v. ArnoldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API