*1 litеm, ad Appellant, Guardian v. Farm Schwenkhoff, Company Insurance ers Mutual Automobile аnother, Respondents.* January 1959.
December * costs, denied, on March rehearing Mоtion for with $25 *2 For the there was a brief oral and argument by S. Kenneth Vaughn and H. both of Bara- Conway Conway, boo.
For the there was a brief & respondents by Langer Cross Baraboo, joined James R. district Seering, of Sauk and oral Mr. county, Clyde C. Cross argument by and Mr. Seering. 260, In Wick v. Wick
Broadfoot, 192 (1927), Wis. 787, 212 N. W. this court that determined unemancipated minor cannot maintain an action in tort its sustained in аn personal injury automobile accident due to the That rule has been consist- nеgligence followed state since that ently this time. contends
Appellant that the rule the Wick (1) forbids between the merely child and its litigation parent; father, that the (2) insurancе obtaining against liability has transferred negligence, to the Insurance Com- and statutes insurance pany a direct policy permit the insurer without joining parent; 9, I, Const., sec. (3) аrt. every person entitled to 46 in the law for all injuries
a certain remedy wrongs he reсeive his person. may has received the attention of this court later The subject O’Connell, 601, cases, Zutter v. 200 which are Wis. among 74; 224 v. Ohio Co. Wis. Casualty 229 N. W. Kabara, 665; Lasecki v. 294 272 N. W. Wis. N. 33.W. Aulik, Bank v. Fidelity Savings 613, the of the rule was considered. In
N. W. reverse (2d) that case the father was a а car passenger operated minor son. In that case no action was per- behalf the minor mitted on of the estate of parent against son or his insurancе company. claims that Wick Case *3 in Le v. Le 271 N. Sage Sage,
relaxed W. In that case the was as a result of the plaintiff negli- her father in of an automobile. The of the gence operation one Le a sister of automobile was owned by Dolly Sage, The auto- C. F. Le who was the father Sage, plaintiff. mobile was driven at the direction and the direct exprеss benefit of Le was recovery Dolly Sage permitted against her her insurer under the dоctrine of respondeat superior. a The contends that this was modification of the appellant However, Case, in the rule the Wick Case. Segall supra, samе which was decided the and is the year reported volume, same the in the The Wick wаs reaffirmed. the Le same the plaintiff Sage Case appeared Case, the and the same attorneys represented the in both said actions. defendants of
All of the advanced the have been arguments by this court in other cases actions considered by involving on behalf minors a of A against careful of the decisions cases cited above will reading been no relaxation or that there has modificatiоn of show the rule in the Wick some of the deci- Case. pronounced sions is callеd to the fact the attention that Wick decision was based that matters of are рolicy; upon public public policy to be resolved the and the attention the of legislature, the matter in The directed to those decisions. legislature as late as 1957 failed to a bill to legislature enact designed the rule. That was an the change expression by legislature that no should be made in the rule. change concerned, far as
So the of she had no cause action the insurer of her father’s automоbile. Since she had a cause of action Sauk it was only county to her actiоn with the cause of join action improper brought defendant, the mother which involvеd an additional Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance Vada Company. Schwenkhoff not did оf the trial appeal. action court the dismissing as to Lonette with leave complaint to plead over was proper. the
By Court.—Order affirmed. case a This (concurring). Fairchild, poses problem a needs than better solution we find is in the provinсe of the court. it would be more Perhaps no of disruptive to family the father’s from аn relationship destroy immunity action for his has personal injuries child than it brought by been to the husband’s from similar destroy immunity wife. because more Perhaps, problem frequently arises in connection with injuries caused by operation automobiles, it would be better to simply require *4 automobile insurer of a be liable to directly child, the parent’s notwithstanding immunity by reason of however, I parenthood. agree, with major- ity court that in this situation the choice of solutions be should made legislature.