Court Opinion

ID: 9709246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:43:34.867213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:47.190060
License: Public Domain

Broadfoot, J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree with the majority of the court that the apportionment of negligence in this case was not a question for the jury. In. two other cases upon the same calendar and reported herewith we have *31stated that, although there may be cases where the circumstances are such that a court can properly rule as a matter of law that the negligence of one of the parties involved is equal to that of the other, such cases are extremely rare and the apportionment of negligence is almost always for the jury. That rule was pronounced in Schmidt v. Leary, 213 Wis. 587, 252 N. W. 151, and Hansberry v. Dunn, 230 Wis. 626, 284 N. W. 556. The two cases in which the rule of the Schmidt and Hansberry Cases is affirmed are Jeffers v. Peoria-Rockford Bus Co. 274 Wis. 594, 80 N. W. (2d) 785, and Bell v. Duesing, post, p. 47, 80 N. W. (2d) 821.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Currie and Mr. Justice Fairchild join in this dissent.