Gage v. Seal
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHanley, J.
The appellant Sandra Seal contends that she is entitled to a new trial because it was prejudicial error not to give the requested instruction on the application of the emergency doctrine and, further, that a new trial should be granted because it was prejudicial error not to inform appellants’ counsel that a signaling instruction earlier refused would be given and in submitting a special verdict to the jury in which issues of negligence, causation, and comparison appeared in single questions.
*664“The application of the emergency rule rests upon the psychological fact that the time which elapses…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Geis v. HirthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Shaw v. WuttkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- Cook v. ThomasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Vallie v. General Insurance Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Wanserski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lutz v. Shelby Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- Menge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
- McCrossen v. Nekoosa Edwards Paper Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Hoeft v. FriedelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- Edeler v. O'BRIENWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.