Legal Opinion

Quady v. Sickl

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1952PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.

A number of errors are assigned. In our view of the case only one need be considered — the contention that the negligence of the plaintiff must be held as a matter of law to be as great or greater than that of Pankratz. We have held that it is in rare cases where we will disturb a jury’s comparison of negligence, and that the instances in which it can be said as a matter of law that the negligence of the plaintiff is equal to, or greater than, that of the defendant will ordinarily be limited to cases where the negligence of each is of precisely the same kind and character. McGuiggan v. Hiller…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Lauson v. Town of Fond du LacWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
  2. McGuiggan v. HillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Zenner v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Guderyon v. Wisconsin Telephone Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Pietsch v. McCarthyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Danculovich v. BrownWyoming Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Davis v. SkilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Johnson v. HeintzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Tate v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Hephner v. WolfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952

33 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