Court Opinion

ID: 9532786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:24:45.507667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:50.527177
License: Public Domain

*511Fairchild, J.
(concurring). “We conclude that the legislature did intend the omnibus coverage clause for the benefit of persons injured and that it should be construed to effect that purpose.” 1
In my opinion we should not find an implied restriction upon permission except in the clearest circumstances. Under the facts presented on the motion for summary judgment, I would not find any restriction on Smith’s permission to Leona, but would find an implied restriction on Leona’s permission to Norton.
Smith left the car in Leona’s possession. She was his adult daughter, and they lived together. He suggested she learn to drive. Under these circumstances I would have no difficulty in concluding that she had implied permission to use the car as she saw fit, including giving unrestricted permission to others.
Leona’s acquaintance with Norton was very brief and solely of a business nature. She was motivated in giving permission by her desire to have the car washed, simonized, and repaired, and by Norton’s statement that he had no other way to return to Kenosha. She ordered him to return it at a specified time. In my opinion a limitation on the permission can properly be implied because of these circumstances, so that the wholly different use at the time of the accident was not with permission. I concur in the affirmance solely on this ground.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Currie and Mr. Justice Dieterich join in this opinion.

 Pavelski v. Roginski (1957), 1 Wis. (2d) 345, 351, 84 N. W. (2d) 84.