Opinion · Wilaw Wisconsin

SWEET v. FARMERS INS. EXCHANGE, 10 Wis.2d 565 (1960)

SWEET, Appellant, v. FARMERS Ins. Exch. & another,Respondents.[fn*], 103 N.W.2d 544 (Wis. 1960)

Type
Opinion
Court
Wilaw Wisconsin
Jurisdiction
Wilaw
Date
1960-06-07
Topic
general

SWEET v. FARMERS INS. EXCHANGE, 10 Wis.2d 565 (1960) 103 N.W.2d 544 SWEET, Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and another,Respondents.[fn*]Supreme Court of Wisconsin.May 2, 1960 — June 7, 1960. [fn*] Motion for rehearing denied, without costs, on October 4, 1960. APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: MICHAEL T.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SWEET v. FARMERS INS. EXCHANGE, 10 Wis.2d 565 (1960). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SWEET v. FARMERS INS. EXCHANGE,10 Wis.2d 565(1960)
103 N.W.2d 544
SWEET, Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE and another,
Respondents.fn*
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
May 2, 1960 —
June 7, 1960.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: MICHAEL T. SULLIVAN, Circuit judge.Reversed,and new trial granted.
This is a companion case toGiemza v. Allied AmericanMut. Fire Ins. Co., ante, p. 555,103 N.W.2d 538. Doris Sweet, wife of Lee Sweet who was killed in the accident, brought suit individually and as special administratrix of her husband's estate against the defendants, Jesse T. Egly, Jr., and his insurer, the Farmers Insurance Exchange. These cases were consolidated for the purpose of trial and for the purpose of appeal to this court. The jury found damages in the total amount of $19,816.46. Because the jury alsoPage 566found Sweet's negligence equal to Egly's negligence. Judgment was entered dismissing the complaint with costs. The plaintiff appealed.
For the appellant there was a brief and oral argument byIrving D. Gainesof Milwaukee.

For the respondents there was a brief byBender, Trump,Davidson Godfreyof Milwaukee, andSchlotthauerJenswoldof Madison, attorneys, andKneeland A. Godfreyof Milwaukee, andJohn T. Jenswoldof Madison, both of counsel, and oral argument byMax D. Davidson.
HALLOWS, J.
The issues of negligence involved in this action are so intertwined with those inGiemza v. AlliedAmerica Mut. Fire Ins. Co., ante, p. 555,103 N.W.2d 538, that a new trial is necessarily required for the reasons set forth therein. The damages may be in excess of the statutory amount. The record is not clear on this point. If they are, the trial court can reduce them and avoid the expense of relitigating the damages issue. Therefore, in the new trial the issues should be confined to the various questions of negligence involved.By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and new trial granted on all issues except damages.Page 567
  1. Motion for rehearing denied, without costs, on October 4, 1960. ↩