Emmert L. Wingert

The case concerned a car accident in which passenger Mrs. Le Mere was injured when the vehicle hit a rut or hole shortly after a railroad crossing on a rough road; the driver was found negligent with respect to lookout, but the jury answered no on whether Mrs. Le Mere's own failure to watch the road was a cause of the accident. Appellants sought to overturn that answer as a matter of law and to add jury questions on whether the driver was negligent in proceeding into a known hazardous condition and whether Mrs. Le Mere assumed the risk. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence permitted the jury to conclude her inattention was not a substantial causal factor because even a proper lookout would not necessarily have allowed timely warning, and that the record lacked evidence the road was so dangerous that traversing it was negligent or that assumption of risk applied.

torts & liability

This case involved a plaintiff injured by slipping on a patch of ice on a public sidewalk that formed after the defendant's nephew spilled water while washing a car in freezing weather. The court determined that the defendant was liable for the nephew's negligence under agency and respondeat superior principles, as the defendant had confided performance of his duty to protect sidewalk users to the unpaid volunteer agent who created the artificial ice hazard. The trial court's apportionment of 90 percent of the negligence to the defendant and 10 percent to the plaintiff was upheld, as it was not against the great weight of the evidence given the defendant's affirmative conduct versus the plaintiff's failure to notice the ice. The judgment was affirmed despite the exclusion of cross-examination evidence about possible malpractice payments to the plaintiff, because the defendant did not sufficiently explain the materiality of the inquiry to the trial court.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a products liability claim by the Weggeman plaintiffs against Seven-Up Bottling Company after an allegedly defective soda bottle exploded and caused injury. The jury returned a verdict finding no manufacturing defect or negligence by the defendant, and the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or to change the answers. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court gave jury instructions that overemphasized the need to rule out post-delivery damage to the bottle and failed to adequately explain the defendant's duty of care or permit proper application of res ipsa loquitur inferences. The court further concluded that the real controversy had not been fully tried and ordered a new trial on all issues.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a worker's compensation claim for a left knee injury allegedly caused by a September 29, 1954, work accident, where surgery was performed in April 1955. The Industrial Commission found that the knee condition requiring surgery resulted from an intervening slip-and-fall accident in February 1955 at the claimant's filling station, not the original work injury, and that prior compensation fully covered any temporary disability from the September accident. The court affirmed the Commission's finding on the cause of the injury, based on the credibility of a treating physician's testimony about the February incident and the claimant's failure to disclose it to other doctors, but reversed on the disability duration because evidence and an insurance company admission showed possible uncompensated disability from January 20 to March 29, 1955. The court remanded solely for determination of any additional compensation for that period resulting from the September injury.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned whether a bequest from a Wisconsin decedent's estate to Dr. Heuss, a German national residing in Germany, for charitable purposes in Germany was exempt from Wisconsin inheritance tax under state statutes or federal treaties. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the bequest was taxable and reversed the county court's contrary ruling. The court reasoned that the relevant statutes (sec. 72.04(1) and (3)) limited charitable exemptions to recipients that were organizations or trustees in Wisconsin or other U.S. states (with reciprocity), not individuals or entities in foreign nations. It further concluded that the 1923 U.S.-Germany treaty (as reinstated) and other treaties did not prohibit the tax or mandate exemption, following U.S. Supreme Court interpretations such as Clark v. Allen that treaties do not cover such dispositions or override state tax authority absent clear language.

taxesfederal power

The case involved a plaintiff who sought damages from the defendant insurer for injuries from an accident, including physical pain, emotional disturbances, personality changes, and impairment of earning capacity. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict awarding damages to the plaintiff, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that evidence from the plaintiff, his wife, coworkers, and medical experts supported findings of substantial ongoing pain and disability that justified the award, and that an instruction regarding the dollar's purchasing power was not prejudicial. The judgment was therefore affirmed.

torts & liability