Legal Opinion

Seefluth v. Herman Mutual Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 10, 1961PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBroadfoot, J.

The issues involved upon this appeal as stated by the appellants are as follows:

“1. Is the testimony of a witness, although not directly controverted, which is opposed to the unquestioned laws of nature of any probative value ?
“2. Assuming the defendant, C. Joe Morzinski, was negligent in the manner in which he parked his truck or negligent in the manner in which the same was illuminated was such negligence a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries ?”

Under the provisions of sec. 346.54 (1) (d), Stats., Morzinski’s truck should have been parked with the right wheels within 12 inches of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Strnad v. Co-Operative Insurance MutualWisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Kleckner v. Great American Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Milwaukee Automobile Mutual Insurance v. Farmers Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Nieman v. American Family Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Behling v. LohmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Grana v. SummerfordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API