Weggeman v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Watertown, SEVEN-UP
| Citation | 5 Wis.2d 503,94 N.W.2d 645 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | SEVEN-UP |
| Parties | Kenneth WEGGEMAN, Appellant, v.BOTTLING CO. OF WATERTOWN, a Wis. corporation, Respondent. Gregory WEGGEMAN, an infant, by his gdn. ad litem, William H. Rogers, Appellant, v.BOTTLING CO. OF WATERTOWN, a Wis. corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
Smith, Rogers & Smith, Fort Atkinson, for appellants.
Schubring, Ryan, Petersen & Sutherland, Madison, for respondent.
The brief submitted in behalf of the defendant on the motion for rehearing contends that the damages awarded are high, and that there was no occasion in the trial court for the defendant to have raised any issue as to the same inasmuch as the jury had found no negligence on its part. Under these circumstances we deem that the new trial should extend all issues.
The original mandate, therefore, is amended to read as follows:
'Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial on all issues.'
The motion for rehearing is denied without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fehrman v. Smirl
...a permissible inference rather than rebuttable presumption. Weggeman v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. (1958), 5 Wis.2d 503, 509, 93 N.W.2d 467, 94 N.W.2d 645, and Ryan v. Zweck-Wollenberg Co. (1954),266 Wis. 630, 649, 64 N.W.2d 226. As a permissible inference, the effect of the doctrine of res ipsa......
-
D.L. by Friederichs v. Huebner
...Peot v. Ferraro, 83 Wis.2d 727, 738-39, 266 N.W.2d 586 (1978); Weggeman v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 5 Wis.2d 503, 517, 93 N.W.2d 467, 94 N.W.2d 645 (1958). The instructions must be framed in the light of the evidence. We have held it error to refuse to instruct on an issue that the evidence r......
-
Gardner v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Minn., 39170
...the bottle broke as a result of a defect existing in it. In Weggeman v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 5 Wis.2d 503, 509, 93 N.W.2d 467, 472, 94 N.W.2d 645, relied upon by plaintiff, the court 'While the jury were thus permitted to infer from the fact of the explosion, with its background, that the......
-
American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dobrzynski
...of the application of the doctrine, noted by the court in Weggeman v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 5 Wis.2d 503, 510, 93 N.W.2d 467, 472, 94 N.W.2d 645, are " '(1) Upon the close of plaintiff's evidence, defendant is not entitled to a nonsuit or directed verdict. " '(2) If defendant also rests at......