Diersen v. Staven
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCurrie, J.
Question No. 5 of the special verdict, which inquired as to whether Harry Diersen was negligent so as to increase the danger which the plaintiff Hildegard Diersen assumed when she entered the car so as to create a new danger, should have been limited solely to management and control and should not have contained the subdivisions (A) and (B) relating to lookout and speed. This is because the host-driver owes the same degree of care to his guests with respect to the elements of lookout and speed as he owes to other persons using the highway. Ameche v. Ameche (1955), ante, pp. 170, 174, 72 N. W.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Poneitowcki v. HarresWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
- Oelke v. EarleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- Shrofe v. Rural Mutual Casualty InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
- Haugen v. WittkopfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
- Whirry v. Rural Mutual Casualty InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Frey v. DickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- Joseph E. Sayen, Jr. v. Edwin J. Rydzewski and Badger Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1967
- Frey v. DickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956