Legal Opinion

Turtenwald v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 3, 1972No. 176PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.

Although not stated precisely in this manner by the parties, the issues are:

1. Was it error to give a res ipsa loquitur instruction to the jury?

2. Was it error to strike the testimony of a witness recalled after he said his memory was refreshed?

3. Are the damages excessive?

The following conditions must be present before the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable: (1) The event or accident in question be of the kind which does not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; and (2) the agency or instrumentality causing the harm must have been within the exclusive control of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Turk v. H. C. Prange Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Fehrman v. SmirlWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Utica Mutual Insurance v. Ripon CooperativeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Welch v. NeisiusWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Mixis v. Wisconsin Public Service Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Lambrecht v. Estate of KaczmarczykWisconsin Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Mary Kicklighter v. Nails by Jannee, Inc., Mary Kicklighter v. Nails by Jannee, Inc., and Third-Party v. Kay-See Dental Manufacturing Co., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
  3. Hoven v. KelbleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  4. FGA, INC. v. GiglioNevada Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Wilson v. Continental Insurance CompaniesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979

22 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