Forecki v. Kohlberg
| Decision Date | 11 March 1941 |
| Citation | 237 Wis. 67,296 N.W. 619 |
| Parties | FORECKI et al. v. KOHLBERG et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On motions for rehearing.
Motions denied.
For former opinion see 295 N.W. 7.
Bendinger, Hayes, Kluwin & Schlosser, of Milwaukee, for appellants.
Robert A. Hess, of Milwaukee (Arthur Wickham, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for respondents.
[1] Original opinion filed December 3, 1940, 295 N.W. 7. The plaintiff Mary Zaleski, administratrix of the estate of Stanley Zaleski, deceased, has moved for a rehearing. Her motion is addressed solely to the question of assumption of risk on the part of her co-plaintiff, Mark J. Forecki. There is nothing new in the argument in support of this motion. The same argument was made in the original brief and was fully considered by the court as indicated in the opinion. The motion will be denied.
[2] The defendants have also moved for a rehearing. They contend that the judgment as to the plaintiff Zaleski should not be affirmed until after a retrial of the Forecki case on the question of damages. We think the position is well taken. Defendants have pleaded a counterclaim in the Zaleski case in which they asked for contribution against the administratrix of the Zaleski estate for one-half of such amount as may be finally awarded to the plaintiff Forecki. In the opinion filed we held that defendants were entitled to contribution as a matter of law. Since defendants' counterclaim is an issue in the Forecki case, the judgment in favor of Mary Zaleski, administratrix of the estate of Stanley Zaleski, deceased, should be reversed with directions that the entry of judgment be deferred until the amount of contribution be determined, whereupon judgment may be entered in favor of the administratrix of the Zaleski estate as heretofore determined, less a sum equal to one-half of the final judgment entered in the Forecki case.
[3] Reference is made in the opinion filed and also in the mandate to Zaleski's insurance carrier. It appears that his insurance carrier was not made a party to this action. The sentences should be stricken.
The mandate heretofore entered is withdrawn and the following entered instead: That part of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff Mary Zaleski, administratrix of the estate of Stanley Zaleski, deceased, is reversed with directions that the entry of the judgment be deferred until the amount of contribution be determined, whereupon judgment shall be entered for the amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foley–ciccantelli v. Bishop's Grove Condo. Ass'n Inc.
...clients. However, we squarely addressed this question in Forecki v. Kohlberg, 237 Wis. 67, 295 N.W. 7 (1940), reh'g denied, 327 Wis. 67, 296 N.W. 619 (1941). In Forecki, Forecki and Zaleski commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries they sustained in a collision between th......
-
Gieseke v. State Dept. of Transp., Div. of Highways
...Because the county is a subdivision of the state, the majority's reliance on Forecki v. Kohlberg, 237 Wis. 67, 75, 295 N.W. 7, 10, 296 N.W. 619 (1941), is misplaced. The state in not only protecting the county's interest but its interest--a public interest--as well. The state does not lack ......
-
Schneider v. Am. Indem. Co.
...the trip without any protest by plaintiff. Young v. Nunn, Bush & Weldon Shoe Co., supra, and Forecki v. Kohlberg, 237 Wis. 67,295 N.W. 7,296 N. W. 619. The traffic was concededly heavy and the speed of the Mueller car, as well as the distance at which Mueller was following other cars, was m......
-
Ready v. Hafeman
...229 Wis. 419, 425, 282 N.W. 606;Homerding v. Pospychalla, 228 Wis. 606, 611, 280 N.W. 409;Forecki v. Kohlberg, 237 Wis. 67, 295 N.W. 7, 296 N.W. 619. [7][8] Inasmuch as the jury found that Hafeman was causally negligent in respect to control and management, and these findings were warranted......