Lepak v. Farmers Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 June 1952 |
| Citation | 262 Wis. 1,53 N.W.2d 710 |
| Parties | LEPAK, v. FARMERS MUT. AUTO. INS. CO. et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Smith, Okoneski, Puchner & Tinkham, Wausau, for appellant.
Genrich & Terwilliger, Wausau, Emil A. Wakeen, Walter H. Piehler, and Neil M. Conway, Wausau, of counsel, for respondents.
It appears to us that the statement made by the learned trial judge in support of his order directing a verdict clearly and correctly states the reason why plaintiff may not recover in this action. He said:
'And under no circumstances does the Court feel that there is any evidence that would justify a finding of guilty of negligence on the part of the defendant Skrzypchak.'
The trial judge did not say expressly that he made his determination upon the ground that if there was causal negligence plaintiff was equally guilty with the driver but it must be assumed that he had that fact in mind for he said earlier in his opinion that the defendants had grounded their motion, among other things, upon that contention.
Plaintiff cites Williams v. Williams, 210 Wis. 304, 246 N.W. 322 to the point that the question of his negligence was for the jury. The cases are clearly distinguishable. In the Williams case the plaintiff was struck after she had alighted from her husband's automobile but it did not appear in that case that she knew that her husband would suddenly start his car and race his engine and thereby cause it to skid on the ice and strike her. In the instant case the plaintiff himself testified that he knew what was going to happen and in spite of that fact stepped from the cab of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Nemetz
...mind, issues of Walter's intent are not dispositive of this appeal. Thus, we need not address them. See Lepak v. Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 262 Wis. 1, 5, 53 N.W.2d 710, 712 (1952). DAMAGES Germantown argues that the jury's $30,000 award to the Nelsons for personal property lost in th......
-
Brunette v. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin
...190 (1953) (patron walked over wire in store aisle when other clear passageways were available); Lepak v. Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 262 Wis. 1, 4-5, 53 N.W.2d 710, 712 (1952) (passenger left safe position in truck knowing it would lurch By denying recovery to Brunette, the co......
-
Siblik v. Motor Transport Co.
...one with the other. As authority they cite such cases as Gvora v. Carlson, 255 Wis. 118, 37 N.W.2d 848, and Lepak v. Farmers Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 262 Wis. 1, 53 N.W.2d 710. In each of those cases it appeared that plaintiff had knowledge of and reason to apprehend the danger to which he......
-
Shipley v. Krueger
...where he should have known he would be struck by the logs which extended over the side of the truck. In Lepak v. Farmers Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 1952, 262 Wis. 1, 53 N.W.2d 710, plaintiff knew of the operation of the particular truck involved and was guilty of negligence for his own safet......