Lupie v. Hartzheim
| Decision Date | 28 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 30,30 |
| Citation | 54 Wis.2d 415,195 N.W.2d 461 |
| Parties | Ernest W. LUPIE et al., Appellants, v. Robert F. HARTZHEIM et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Hale, Skemp, Hanson, Schnurrer & Skemp, LaCrosse, for appellants.
Johns, Flaherty, Harman & Gillette, Robert D. Johns, Jr., LaCrosse, for respondents.
The action arose as the result of an automobile accident on April 29, 1968, between automobiles driven by one of the plaintiffs, Marmein E. Lupie, and one of the defendants, Robert F. Hartzheim. The jury returned a verdict apportioning the negligence equally between the plaintiff and defendant. The jury's apportionment was upheld by the trial judge in motions after verdict. The plaintiffs appeal, contending that the judgment should have awarded 50 percent of the damages to the plaintiffs.
The comparative negligence law at the time of the accident provided:
That statute has been consistently interpreted by this court to permit recovery by a plaintiff only if his negligence was 'not as great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought.' Under this interpretation, a plaintiff who is charged with 49 percent of the total negligence recovers 51 percent of his damage, while one who is charged with 50 percent recovers nothing. See Vincent v. Pabst Brewing Co. (1970), 47 Wis.2d 120, 177 N.W.2d 513, for a thorough discussion of the interpretation placed upon the comparative negligence statute by this court. In Vincent a majority of this court expressed its dissatisfaction with the doctrine which barred recovery by a claimant who is 50 percent or more negligent. Although the principal opinion of the court expressed no preference for a full comparsion of negligence which would distribute responsibility according to the degree of fault without an arbitrary percentage bar, a majority of the court, as expressed in concurring and dissenting opinions, indicated that such a change was desirable and was within the inherent power of the court to accomplish without further enabling legislation. The majority of the court, however, agreed that the court should defer to the legislature as the proper body to make a study of the subject and to adopt whatever changes it considered appropriate.
After the mandate of Vincent, supra, the legislature enacted ch. 47 of the Laws of 1971, published on June 22, 1971. That statutory modification struck from the statute the words, 'as great as,' and substituted therefor the words, 'greater than.' Under this statutory modification, plaintiffs found 50 percent negligent will be able to recover 50 percent of their damages from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delvaux v. Vanden Langenberg
...matters that stem from judicial creation has not been eroded by the passage of the comparative negligence act. Lupie v. Hartzheim, 54 Wis.2d at 418, 195 N.W.2d 461. We underscored our Reiter holding in Wis. Natural Gas v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Construction Corp., 96 Wis.2d 314, 291 N.W.2d 825......
-
Johnson v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
...of its law cannot operate retrospectively. Holzem v. Mueller, 54 Wis.2d 388, 195 N.W.2d 635, 640 (1972); Lupie v. Hartzheim, 54 Wis.2d 415, 195 N.W.2d 461, 462 (1972). We hold that the Wyoming Legislature intended for the provisions of § 1-7.7, supra, to apply to incidents occurring only on......
-
Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co.
...damages if his or her negligence was less than the negligence of the person from whom recovery was sought. Lupie v. Hartzheim, 54 Wis.2d 415, 416, 195 N.W.2d 461 (1972). However, the adoption of comparative negligence did not change the common law rule of joint and several liability for the......
-
Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Const. Corp.
...and to adopt changes it concludes appropriate." Id. at 130, 177 N.W.2d at 517-518. (concurring opinion). See also : Lupie v. Hartzheim, 54 Wis.2d 415, 195 N.W.2d 461 (1972); and Soczka v. Rechner, supra. Moreover, Chief Justice BEILFUSS, writing in a most recent opinion of this court, Reite......