Court Opinion

ID: 9724565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:02:23.236401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:02.578408
License: Public Domain

Hallows, J.
(dissenting). I would affirm. The evidence of damage to the six heifers is undisputed. One hardly *499needs more opinion evidence to establish the causal relationship between the early breeding and the damage and the subsequent death of three heifers and the uselessness as dairy cows of the other three. The distinction between a possibility and a probability is a matter of degree in the relationship of cause and effect. What this record lacks in expert testimony is supplied by common sense.
On the further hearing the court should admit the rejected opinion testimony of the plaintiff on causation. Causation and damages are at issue as to each heifer.
This case recalls the famous case of Kopplin v. Quade (1911), 145 Wis. 454, 130 N. W. 511, in which Mr. Justice Barnes dealt with what he called a somewhat morganatic mesalliance between the “highbrow” thoroughbred Holstein-Friesian heifer, Martha Pietertje Pauline, and a lowly born and nameless plebeian bull, who had similar aspirations beyond his humble station in life.