Legal Opinion
Schimke v. Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. of Herman
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided May 4, 1954PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
The first question on this appeal is whether the verdict is sustained by the evidence.
The only testimony with regard to how the accident happened is that of Lloyd Schimke:
“There is a little bend in the road. It seems we met a car and two wheels dropped off the pavement, the right two wheels, and he was going to bring it back in the road when we hit a bump and it started zigzagging and that is all I remember.”
He further testified:
“Q. Did he continue on the shoulder for some distance? A. No, as the car went past he was bringing it back.”
Defendant contends that since there is no explanation why…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Klein v. BeetenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
- Baars v. BendaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1946
- Maurer v. FesingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
- Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. MatsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
3Cited by23 opinions
- Metcalf v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity CompanyNebraska Supreme Court · 1964
- Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Metropolitan Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- Martin v. Outboard Marine Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Behringer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
- Prisuda v. General Casualty Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.