Legal Opinion

Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Harry Crow & Son, Inc.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided February 3, 1959PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

Defendants assert that the record will not sustain the jury finding that Orr was negligent, that the damage awards were excessive, and that there were several prejudicial errors upon the trial. Upon our review of the record, we reach the conclusion that defendants’ challenges are not well founded and that the judgment is to be affirmed.

1. Findings of negligence. It was conceded that Huber never saw the truck. The jury found that his failure to see it was negligence as to lookout and attributed 15 per cent of the total negligence to him. Orr testified that he saw Huber at all material times…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Dempsey v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1952
  2. Briggs v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
  3. Larson v. HansonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Patterson v. Edgerton Sand & Gravel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Johannsen v. Peter P. Woboril, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Pierringer v. HogerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Affett v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Michaud v. SteckinoSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
  4. Gorham v. Farmington Motor Inn, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
  5. Stover v. Lakeland Square Owners Ass'nSupreme Court of Iowa · 1989

12 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