Coakley v. Degner

• Decision Date: 12 October 1926
• Parties: COAKLEY ET AL. v. DEGNER ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

191 Wis. 170

210 N.W. 359

COAKLEY ET AL.

v.DEGNER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 12, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; John J. Gregory, Judge.

Action by W. F. Coakley and another, copartners under the name and style of Coakley Bros., against C. E. Degner and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Action to recover the value of a truck owned by plaintiffs. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. Plaintiffs operate a storage and moving business in Milwaukee. On March 6, 1923, they contracted to transport household goods for the defendants from Milwaukee to an island in Nagawicka Lake. Plaintiffs' truck driver attempted to go across the ice of the lake to the defendants' island. While crossing the ice a rear wheel of the truck went into a hole evidently made by those who had fished through the ice. The driver was unable to get the wheel out of the hole before darkness came on. The truck was left on the ice, and some time during the night it sank to the bottom of the lake in 70 feet of water.

The jury found that C. E. Degner, who represented defendants, knew that the driver had been instructed not to go upon the ice, that he assured the driver that the ice was safe, that such assurance induced the driver to go upon the ice, and that such assurance was the proximate cause of the loss of the truck. Notwithstanding this verdict, the court ordered judgment for the defendant.O. L. O'Boyle, of Milwaukee (Arthur J. Schmid, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellants.

Schoetz, Williams & Gandrey, of Milwaukee, for respondents.

STEVENS, J.

One is liable to respond in damages who maliciously induces the agent of another to betray the trust imposed in him by his principal, for the purpose of securing some advantage to himself at the expense of the principal. Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Lang, 186 Wis. 530, 538, 203 N. W. 399.

The record is barren of any proof that would warrant a finding that defendant Degner acted maliciously in giving assurance that the ice was safe. No advantage came to the defendants from the driving of the truck over the ice. The plaintiffs were under contract to deliver the furniture on the island. If the truck did not go over the ice, it was the duty of the plaintiffs to furnish some other mode of transporting the furniture to the island. Manifestly, if the condition of the ice was such as to endanger the truck, it also subjected the defendants...