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

This case involved a deputy marshal who was injured by a car crash while stepping outside a restaurant to receive information from another officer about a theft he was investigating as part of his duties. The Industrial Commission denied workers' compensation, but the court affirmed a judgment setting aside that order. On the undisputed facts, the court held that the injury occurred while the deputy was performing service growing out of and incidental to his employment, and the accident arose out of that employment, presenting only a question of law. The deputy was subject to call 24 hours a day, the information directly related to his official investigation, and he had returned to duty upon stepping outside, distinguishing the facts from cases involving purely personal activities.

labor & employment

This case involved an appeal from a circuit court order that vacated an earlier order for judgment dated April 5, 1957, and granted a new trial in the interest of justice. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the vacation of the order for judgment, holding that it was timely and authorized under Wis. Stat. sec. 269.46(3) because it occurred within the court term and complied with the 60-day review period, even without prior notice of entry. The court reversed the portion granting a new trial, reasoning that the order failed to set forth detailed reasons as required by Wis. Stat. sec. 270.49(2), which applies to both jury and bench trials, and that the referenced opinion did not cure the deficiency or meet standards for newly discovered evidence under sec. 270.50. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the merits following the valid vacation, with no costs awarded due to the appellant's failure to file an appendix.

procedure

The case involved a worker who fell down basement stairs in a building after becoming confused while on the premises to repair the roof, leading to a lawsuit against the building owner and the tenants for injuries under Wisconsin's safe-place statute and common-law negligence. The court affirmed dismissal of the claims, holding the owner not liable because he had leased the relevant portions of the building and retained no control, with any potential structural issues not causing the fall. As to the tenants, the plaintiff became a trespasser rather than a protected frequenter when he deviated from his work path into the unpermitted vestibule and stairs, so the safe-place statute did not apply, and there was insufficient evidence to support a negligence claim regarding hallway conditions. The court also rejected reliance on an affidavit based on information and belief to oppose summary judgment.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between an employee and his employer, the American Automobile Association, over whether the termination of an employment contract gave rise to a claim for damages. The court reversed the judgment for the employee and dismissed the complaint, holding that the contract was terminable at will by either party on three days' written notice. The core reasoning was that Wisconsin precedent treats employment contracts without a specified duration or contrary intent as indefinite and terminable at will, and the contract here explicitly authorized cancellation by either party on notice without requiring cause. The court found no extrinsic facts or language showing the parties intended termination only for cause, and the employee had already been paid all earned commissions.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a mother's claim for damages after her adult daughter's death, specifically for pecuniary losses from the daughter's financial contributions and for loss of society and companionship. The trial court set aside the jury's finding of zero pecuniary damages and offered the plaintiff the option of accepting $1,500 or a new trial on damages. The appellate court reversed that order, holding that while the jury's zero award was properly rejected because the evidence showed a pattern of substantial contributions, the record lacked sufficient proof of net pecuniary gain after accounting for the mother's expenses in supporting the daughter. Therefore, a new trial was required on both pecuniary loss and loss of society and companionship to allow the issues to be fully tried.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a divorce action brought by Vivian Caldwell against her husband, Dr. Hugh M. Caldwell, on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment over several years, including physical abuse and threats, along with disputes over property division and security for child support. The court affirmed the grant of divorce to Vivian, finding ample evidence of the husband's unjustified mistreatment that endangered her health, no condonation through her temporary returns, and his mental competence at the time of the acts despite his illnesses like cerebral arteriosclerosis. It also upheld the limited award of attorney fees to the wife's counsel. However, the court reversed the judgment's failure to secure the child's support during minority by placing assets in trust or otherwise, holding that the trial court had erred in concluding it lacked power to do so and remanding for further proceedings on that issue while affirming the rest of the property disposition.

family lawproperty

The case concerned the interpretation of a will provision charging a specifically devised farm with the payment of debts, expenses, and cash bequests, and whether that language required those items to be paid first from the real estate (exonerating the personal estate) or merely allowed the real estate to be used if personal property proved insufficient. The court held that the personal estate remained primarily liable and that the real estate could be resorted to only secondarily, affirming the probate order to that effect. The decision rested on the general presumption under Wisconsin statutes and case law that debts, expenses, and legacies are payable from personalty first unless the will clearly shows a contrary intent to exonerate it, which the language here did not. Extrinsic evidence from the will's drafter reinforced that the testatrix intended the personal estate to be used initially.

property

This case arose from a car collision involving plaintiff Rude and defendants Algiers and McCourt, following a prior federal court action on the same accident. The court directed a new trial limited to the issues of Algiers’ causal negligence and Rude’s damages (excluding certain stipulated expenses). It reasoned that the jury’s award of only $683 for pain, suffering, and lost earnings was seriously inadequate given the extent of Rude’s injuries and medical costs, that the admission of a hypothetical map may have unduly influenced the verdict, and that inconsistencies with the federal court’s findings on related issues warranted retrial under the court’s discretionary authority. The court also addressed but did not resolve res judicata arguments regarding the federal judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case arose from a car accident in which McCourt and passenger Rude were injured; after a federal court action involving McCourt's insurer, Rude, and Algiers (in which Algiers cross-claimed against the insurer), the federal jury found McCourt not negligent and Algiers solely at fault. In this subsequent state-court suit by McCourt against Algiers and his insurer for her damages, the court held that the federal judgment conclusively established the negligence issues under res judicata principles, even though McCourt herself was not a party, because her insurer stood in her shoes and Algiers had a full opportunity to litigate those issues. The court therefore ordered a new trial limited to the amount of McCourt's damages, finding the jury's low award inadequate and unsupported by the evidence of her injuries, lost earnings, and other losses.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a challenge by the Town of Blooming Grove to the City of Madison's annexation of territory, questioning whether the petition for annexation had the required signatures of electors and property owners at the time the ordinance was passed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the city's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was a material issue of fact regarding the sufficiency of signatures that needed to be resolved at trial, and that the city council's recital in the ordinance was not conclusive on the matter. The court reasoned that the annexation statute sets forth specific requirements as safeguards, allowing judicial inquiry into compliance when challenged timely within the statutory period. Additionally, the court held that a proposed supplement to the complaint raising a new objection was untimely after three years.

procedure

This case concerned the validity of stock issued by a subsidiary company to its executives as bonuses under a 1936 shareholder resolution of the parent company, which limited distributions to 150 shares per $50,000 of accumulated net earnings after normal taxes. The court held that portions of the 3,000 shares were improperly issued because the plan disregarded prior losses when calculating accumulated earnings, made unauthorized adjustments for certain taxes, and violated the statutory prohibition on issuing stock below par value. The subsidiary was not barred from canceling the invalid shares by laches or estoppel, as the plaintiffs failed to show prejudice from the delay or detrimental reliance. The judgment upholding the issuances was therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine the exact shares affected.

business & regulatory

This case involved a quo warranto action brought by City Bank & Trust Company and others against Marshall & Ilsley Bank, challenging the latter's plan to relocate a branch office as an alleged violation of statutory limits on bank branches under Wisconsin law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal on demurrer, holding that the action could proceed. The court reasoned that quo warranto is an appropriate remedy to prevent a corporation from unlawfully exercising its franchise beyond statutory limits, that the action was not premature given the bank's lease of new premises and public announcement of the move, and that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pursued administrative remedies by requesting action from the banking commissioner, who declined to intervene. The court did not address the underlying merits of whether the relocation violated sec. 221.04 (1) (f), Stats.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned whether payments to a widow under an antenuptial agreement were subject to Wisconsin inheritance tax under statutes imposing the tax on transfers by will or by the intestate laws. The court affirmed the tax assessment, holding that the $160 monthly payments provided by the contract qualified as a taxable transfer because they constituted rights acquired by contract in lieu of dower, as defined in the statute. The decision rested on the plain language of the inheritance tax provisions, their legislative history showing an intent to cover antenuptial contracts, and the fact that the agreement was executed after the relevant statutory amendments. The court rejected constitutional challenges, finding no impairment of contract obligations or violation of uniformity requirements since the contract was made with the statute already in effect.

taxesfamily lawproperty

This case involves a multi-appeal dispute arising from a collision between Miller's car and a truck driven by Kujak, leased to Moore Motor Freight Lines. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in favor of Miller, holding that prior appeals established as the law of the case that the position of Miller's car at the time of impact was a jury question, supported by credible evidence. It reversed the judgment allowing Dodson, the insurer, to recover from Walske Transfer, ruling that Kujak was an additional insured under the policy, preventing subrogation or indemnity against one's own insured under the omnibus coverage statute.

torts & liabilityprocedure