Court Opinion

ID: 9861411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:58:15.934209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:25.438100
License: Public Domain

Fairchild, J.
(dissenting). It seems to me that the testimony of Motola, taken as a whole, is open to the interpretation that he was unable to recall the entire conversation, but was positive that Byrne had not said the wheel was unsafe. The decision as to the correct interpretation of it was for the jury.1 If the jury understood Motola’s testimony as just suggested, it could believe him and disbelieve Mr. Byrne and Mr. Prasch.
Although defendant was entitled, in my opinion, to reversal of the judgment against it and to a new trial because the special verdict did not contain the appropriate questions, I am satisfied that the evidence presented a jury question and that the complaint should not be dismissed.

 Klabunde v. Emerling (1959), 8 Wis. (2d) 472, 479, 99 N. W. (2d) 736; Winston v. Weiner (1958), 2 Wis. (2d) 584, 594, 87 N. W. (2d) 292.