Legal Opinion

Spitler v. Dean

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1989No. 87-1255PublishedCited by 75 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliam A. Bablitch, J.

The plaintiff, Donald Lee Spitler (Spitler), filed this intentional tort claim more than two years after he was injured, but less than two years after he discovered the identity of the alleged tortfeasor. He requests this court to extend the “discovery rule” adopted in Hansen v. A.H. Robins, Inc., 113 Wis. 2d 550, 335 N.W.2d 578 (1983), to hold that a tort claim accrues only when the plaintiff discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the identity of the alleged tortfeasor. We agree, and remand to the trial court to determine whether reasonable diligence was exercised in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hansen v. AH Robins, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Hilker v. Western Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Borello v. U.S. Oil Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Barry v. MinahanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Peterson v. RoloffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973

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

3Cited by75 opinions

  1. Phillip F. Winskunas v. James G. Birnbaum and Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
  2. Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Sawyer v. MidelfortWisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Hennekens v. HoerlWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Slack v. Kanawha County Housing & Redevelopment AuthorityWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1992

70 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