Meyer v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.
On this appeal, two questions are raised: (1) Did the court err in directing a verdict for Meidl and his insurer absolving Meidl from negligence under the emergency doctrine, and (2) did the court err in not admitting in evidence a written statement taken by an employee of the Herman Mutual Insurance Company from Johnson?
A review of the pertinent facts is necessary. Highway 41 at the point of impact is 22 feet wide with shoulders on both sides wide enough for the width of a car. It was daylight, visibility was excellent and the road was dry. About a half mile north of the scene of the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Truelsch v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
- Hoehne v. MittelstadtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
- Klas v. FenskeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1946
- Havens v. HavensWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Musha v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. BuelowCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1984
- State v. JohnsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Merlino v. Mutual Service Casualty InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- State v. PepinCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1982
- Ashley v. American Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.