1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.2d
  4. 3 Wis.2d
  5. 3 Wis.2d 616 (1958)
 

SPRAGUE v. HAUCK

3 Wis.2d 616 (1958)

SPRAGUE, Appellant, vs. HAUCK, Administratrix, Respondent. FREDERICK, Appellant, vs. SAME, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 8, 1958.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the appellant Roy Sprague there was a brief by David L. Phillips, attorney, and Burton Lepp of counsel, both of Kenosha, and oral argument by Mr. Lepp.

For the appellant Rose Frederick there was a brief by Earl D. Morton and Conrad J. Shearer, both of Kenosha, and oral argument by Mr. Shearer.

For the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of Cavanagh, Mittelstaed, Sheldon, Heide & Hartley of Kenosha.

CURRIE, J.

The two principal issues here raised are:

(1) Is the inconsistency in the verdict such as to require a new trial?

(2) Is there any credible evidence to support the jury's finding of assumption of risk by the two passengers?

There is an inconsistency in the verdict because the jury, after absolving Hauck of any negligence as to lookout, nevertheless found that the two passengers assumed the risk of Hauck's negligence as to lookout...

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