Longberg v. H.L. Green Co., Inc.

Decision Date03 April 1962
Citation15 Wis.2d 505,114 N.W.2d 435
PartiesMildred LONGBERG, Respondent, v. H. L. GREEN CO., Inc., a foreign corporation, et al., Appellants. (Two notices of appeal.)
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

John P. Thornton, Eau Claire, Genrich, Terwilliger, Wakeen, Piehler & Conway, Wausau, for appellant Kliszcz.

Ramsdell, King, Carroll & Barland, Eau Claire, for appellant H. L. Green Co., Inc.

PER CURIAM.

The special verdict returned by the jury made a comparison of the negligence of the two defendants and apportioned 70 per cent of the total aggregate negligence to defendant H. L. Green Company, and 30 per cent thereof to defendant Thomas G. Kliszcz. The judgment entered below provided for contribution between the defendants on an equal basis.

Defendant-appellant Kliszcz has filed a motion for rehearing in which he asks this court to apply the new rule on contribution, enunciated in Bielski v. Schulze, (1962), 16 Wis.2d 1, 114 N.W.2d 105, to those portions of the judgment which provide for contribution between the two defendants. This rule was made retroactive to all cases except those in three specified classifications. We deem that the instant case does not fall within any of these three excepted classifications.

Therefore, our prior mandate is modified to read as follows: 'That part of the judgment which awards contribution to defendant H. L. Green Company is modified so as to provide that such defendant shall have judgment for contribution against defendant Kliszcz for all sums it shall pay to the plaintiff in excess of 70 per cent of the judgment with interest. That part of the judgment which awards contribution to defendant Kliszcz is modified so as to provide that such defendant shall have judgment for contribution against defendant H. L. Green Company for all sums it shall pay to the plaintiff in excess of 30 per cent of the judgment with interest. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.'

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • May 12, 1980
    ...26 Wis.2d 525, 133 N.W.2d 335.) In these and other cases, (See: Longberg v. H. L. Green Co. (1962), 15 Wis.2d 505, 516, 113 N.W.2d 129, 114 N.W.2d 435; and Colla v. Mandella, 1 Wis.2d 594, 598-9, 85 N.W.2d 345 (1957)) on public policy grounds, we have refused to impose liability where such ......
  • Hicks v. Nunnery
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 2002
    ... ... § 805.14(5)(b); Greenlee v. Rainbow Auction/Realty Co., 202 Wis. 2d 653, 661, 553 N.W.2d 257 (Ct. App. 1996) ... Kenwood Equip., Inc. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 48 Wis. 2d 472, 485, 180 N.W.2d 750 ... In explaining the Pfeifer approach, in 1962, in Longberg v. H. L. Green Co., 15 Wis.2d 505, 113 N.W.2d 129, 114 ... ...
  • Gross v. Denow
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1973
    ...Presti v. O'Donahue (1964), 25 Wis.2d 594, 599, 131 N.W.2d 273 (Citing Longberg v. H. L. Green Co. (1962), 15 Wis.2d 505, 113 N.W.2d 129, 114 N.W.2d 435.).15 Gould v. All-Star Ins. Co., 59 Wis.2d, supra at page 362, 208 N.W.2d at page 392, stating: 'In view of the nature of the use to which......
  • Schilling v. Stockel
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1965
    ...no-duty formula of Palsgraf and Waube,' to use the phraseology of Longberg v. H. L. Green Co. (1962), 15 Wis.2d 505, 516, 113 N.W.2d 129, 114 N.W.2d 435. See Colla v. Mandella (1957), 1 Wis.2d 594, 598, 85 N.W.2d 345, 64 A.L.R.2d 95, and Klassa v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co. (1956), 273 Wis. 17......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT