June Gilbertson v. Clifford De Long and Carolina Casualty Company, and Mutual Service Casualty Company
301 F.2d 284
7th Cir.
1962
Check Treatment

*1 ENOCH, Judge. Circuit GILBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, June appeal interpretation of involves Statutes, Section 343.15 of the Wisconsin Casualty Clifford DE and provides (2), LONG Carolina under sub-section Defendants, Company, follows: “Any negligence or wilful miscon- Casualty Company, Mutual Service person of 18 Defendant-Appellee. when a motor vehicle No. 13548. highways signed United States Court person’s per- for such The license. Seventh Circuit. jointly son who and sev- so April erally operator liable with such 26,1962. Rehearing April Denied any damages gent or wilful misconduct.”

The action in the Court arose below out of an automobile accident in which injured. June Gilbertson was undisputed facts was she passenger in an automobile driven son, minor William which col- lided with an automobile driven de- DeLong. fendant, jury Clifford negligence: attributed causal 40% William Gilbertson and to Clifford 60% DeLong. Judgment was entered on that verdict. stipulated

It was that Mrs. Gilbertson license, her son’s driver’s and that the automobile which was he by appellee, was insured Mutual Casualty Company. Service Casualty Company Mutual Service filed a motion to vacate the and dis- complaint, miss as to Mutual Service Casualty Company, ground Mrs. Gilbertson’s son equally negligent him, made her with to her quoted above. statute The District Court- granted motion, appeal and this fol- lowed. Appellant sponsorship- adopted a limited doctrine of im-

puted superior standard, which should have no Sigl, Wis., Claire, L. Eau Kenneth tion master appellant. servant, partners participants Claire, Wis., Wilcox, Eau J. Francis joint enterprise. Appellant’s position appellees. the intent of controlling HASTINGS, Judge, Chief Before construction of a stat- Judges. ute; ENOCH of this *2 285 against language (t public protect of is the statute to the is unambiguous. youthful [Employers damage by clear and drivers attaches It parent sponsor Haucke to the for Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 426]; any negligence operation (1954) 72, N.W.2d the of Wis. 64 267 child, applied by out an be automobile his or the statute contemplation provisions of parent and under side its of the reasonable a injury legislature; the to the an in for an permit sponsor con reasonable struction of a is outside such child under eighteen legislature. Employ templation of the of liable made negligent ers Mutual Fire supra; Co.v. or Insurance unlawful con (1953) of such v. Luck 264 Wis. minor in Connell a 282, highways, 58 vehicle N.W.2d the [citing (1960) Klatt v. Zera 11 Wis. case, In the Haucke the Court held that 415, 424, 2d 105 N.W.2d 776] company insurance was entitled “The excep- statute contains no sponsor to recover from the sums provision It any no makes Ferguson, paid insured, it its one exemption spon- sustained when the by sponsor parent.” sustained the Fergu- sored licensee Haucke stole the legislature prescribed Nor has the son tempting at- automobile wrecked it while escape capture. under The Court this statute be applied page principal as at between Haucke said joint page venturers, partners. 428: legislative case, In purpose par- the cited “The Haucke the both ties, plain. Court What the the in- said that the statute is statute was protect public. do Appel- tended to the the damage legislature, the the lant fore, there- gent operation by youth- must have intended not to vehicles bar claims Nothing sponsor the between However, ful drivers. guage in its lan- the minor. protection appellee barring suggests, as indicates that such high- sponsor negligent a limited to other claims of a users the might encourage way. greater opinion degree our a In literal inter- a pretation supervision operation of the over the statute leads to contrary, pas- in which absurd On the a result. the senger. protection purpose construction extends to all Thus the clear legislature public, as would better the intend- be served than Why appel- should ed. the limited construction which protected urges upon whose car is stolen lant be us. same as others who suffer arguments raised Other neg- the result minor driver’s considered but have been found to have ligence ?” altering our no effect conclusion that The Connell case concerned a farm the District Court must tractor. The Court stated there that if affirmed. be giving plain unambigu- a statute its Judge (dissent- ous literal surdity, resulted in an ab- ing). so as involve Chicago, M., obscurity, Archer v. St. P. In P. & construction would necessary. Ry. Co., 215 Wis. N.W. Court Connell Supreme highway Court agent found A.L.R. safety measure; it was held that broad enough being op- will cover farm which is tractors recovering hayfields. principal from highways, erated on but not bar the Fenske, Judge agent. In Klas v. As the District in the instant case the court said: 22 N.W.2d said: ligence applied pointed it is connection “In this joint adventurers. members that as between

out joint enterprise doctrine plaintiff had If other than someone *3 negligence imputed has the driver’s license William negligence Ordinary on the would be entitled joint enter- part of member for- recover under law. The Wisconsin resulting injury to other prise her tuitous circumstance of him liable renders member recovery. should not bar injury.” 343.15(2) Section makes the Pierce, Moreover, 262 Wis. Supreme v. in Johnsen operates as well as 394, 397, caused liable for by a Wisconsin, in action Court of negligence. legis operator’s personal recover mother to “pro lative because her son tect the a ear which both negligent operation of vehicles the youthful riding, said: were Employers’ Fire Mut. drivers.” N.W. v. Ins. Co. pass Johnsen’s now to Mrs. “We Though 2d 426. It was Mrs. son. action seemingly engaged is the the minor which effect Robert were Johnsen holding the instant joint venture, the Court in an action between case. of one venturer them imputed other. Be- to the respectfully I dis- For these reasons their tween such I would reverse. sent. though the other the same as each plain- host and the were driver guest driver and the owes tiff the gra- required care other the agent.” tuitous unequivocally demonstrates case general law of the State the doctrine of Wisconsin superior principles and the applicable negligence are not FLORAL, SOCIETE ANON PRESTIGE joint adventurers. YME, Plaintiff-Appellant, foregoing in the cases statements with the decisional law consistent ZUNINO-ALTMAN, INC., Defendant throughout generally the Unit- prevailing Appellee. Restatement, Torts, § ed States. 299, Docket No. 27375. Negligence a; 65 C.J.S. § Comment Court of United States 798; Am.Jur. at 925. § Circuit. Second my nothing view that there is It is Argued March 1962. 343.15(2) that the indicate Section principles restriction Decided March 1962. foregoing negligence which the Wiscon- read establish cases sin presumed It must be statute. into Legislature had in pre- law Wisconsin decisional mind the vailing passed at the time including which that imputed neg- given concept 343.15(2), 1959. § Wisc.Stat.