Case ID: wis_216/html/0026-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fairchild, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Whyte (Ruth), Respondent, vs. Lindblom and another, Appellants.
    
      May 9
    
    June 5, 1934.
    
    For the appellants there were briefs by Hammond & Jones of Kenosha, and oral argument by Walter W. Hammond.
    
    For the respondent there was a brief by Randall, Cavanagh, Stephenson & Mittelstaed of Kenosha, and oral argument by Roy S. Stephenson.
    
   Fairchild, J.

The controlling questions which' determine this case are treated in the case of Jessel S. Whyte v. Lindblom, ante, p. 21, 255 N. W. 265, 256 N. W. 244. The negligence of the driver of the car owned by respondent is not attributable to the latter. The car was in the possession of a bailee when it was damaged, and respondent is entitled to recover for that damage.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.