Legal Opinion

Kerlinske v. Etzel

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 11, 1927PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwen, J.

Appellant contends that the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in failing to give warning of his intention to pass the defendant’s car. In Suren v. Zuege, 186 Wis. 264, 201 N. W. 722, we held that a motorcycle officer was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law under quite similar circumstances. The only difference between the two cases is that in the Suren Case the motorcycle officer was proceeding at a higher rate of speed than was the plaintiff in this case. In this case the driveway into which defendant turned her car was less frequently used…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Suren v. ZuegeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. France v. BenterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1964
  2. Kleckner v. Great American Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Zurfluh v. Lewis CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Fink v. LewarkWyoming Supreme Court · 1952
  5. France v. BenterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API