CATURA v. ROMANOFSKY


268 Wis. 11 (1954)

CATURA and another, Plaintiffs and Respondents, vs. ROMANOFSKY and another, Defendants and Appellants. RISCHETTE, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. SAME, Defendants and Appellants: CATURA, Defendant and Respondent.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

November 9, 1954.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the appellants there was a brief by Dougherty, Arnold & Philipp of Milwaukee, and oral argument by Suel O. Arnold.

For the respondents Bernard Catura and Minnesota Farmers Mutual Casualty Insurance Company there was a brief by Cape & Schellinger and Quarles, Spence & Quarles, attorneys, and Stanley F. Schellinger and Edmund W. Powell of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by Mr. Powell and Mr. Stanley F. Schellinger.

For the respondent Peter Rischette there was a brief by Clair H. Voss and Harry E. Fryatt, Jr., both of Waukesha.


BROADFOOT, J.

Many assignments of error are raised by the appellants. Two of these will be sufficient to demonstrate the need for a new trial in these actions. The first has to do with the form of the special verdict. Question One thereof inquired as to the negligence of the defendant Romanofsky in the manner of operating his automobile. Question Two thereof was the usual causation question as to Romanofsky in case the jury had found he was negligent by its answers...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases