1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.2d
  4. 33 Wis.2d
  5. 33 Wis.2d 14 (1966)
 

SCHILLING v. GALL

33 Wis.2d 14 (1966)

SCHILLING, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GALL and another, Defendants and Respondents: HECKEL and another, Defendants and Appellants.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

November 29, 1966.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the defendants-appellants there was a brief by Schmidt & Thibodeau of Wisconsin Rapids, and oral argument by Leon S. Schmidt.

For the plaintiff-respondent there was a brief by Hoerl, Day & Kamps of Marshfield, and oral argument by John D. Day.

For the defendants-respondents there was a brief by Brazeau, Brazeau, Potter & Cole of Wisconsin Rapids, and oral argument by John M. Potter.

GORDON, J.

The Comparison of Negligence.

The appellant reasons that if Mr. Schilling was negligent, as the jury held, it must have been based upon his having stopped on the highway without lights. Mr. Heckel asks: How can 60 percent of the negligence be attributed to me when Mr. Schilling has committed such serious violations?

The answer to Mr. Heckel's question is that we do not know precisely what conduct on the part of Mr. Schilling was deemed...

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