Court Opinion

ID: 9658829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:16:57.688461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:00.231631
License: Public Domain

Fairchild, J.
(dissenting). I would reverse the judgment. The insured placed Morris in control of the truck for the purpose of operation upon the highway. The Insurance Company had agreed to cover pleasure as well as business use. Plaintiff had the misfortune of being injured after Morris had left the designated route. In my opinion the legislature enacted the omnibus coverage requirement for the benefit of members of the public injured by negligent operation of an insured automobile as well as for the protection from liability of one who operates it with permission. Pavelski v. Roginski (1957), 1 Wis. (2d) 345, 84 N. W. *208(2d) 84. The word “permission” should be liberally construed to carry out the legislative purpose. When an injury occurs after a driver has been given permission to operate a car on the highway a general instruction never to go any farther than expressly directed and the fact that the driver has ordinarily made only a limited use of the car should be given no weight. I am satisfied that protection of an injured plaintiff in the circumstances of this case falls within the legislative intent.
' I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Currie and Mr. Justice Dieterich join in this dissent.