Utecht v. Steinagel

The appellants contend the verdict is inconsistent and invalid under the statutory five-sixths rule.

The respondents argue that the claims for damage by the appellant-husband constitute a separate cause of action and that the verdict is not inconsistent nor invalid under the five-sixths rule.

The respondents assert that Clarence Utecht’s cause of action is separate from that of his wife by virtue of ch. 246, Stats., which provides that a married woman may sue in her own name, including claims for personal injuries and damages. Further, sec. 246.07 provides that a husband can maintain a separate…