White v. Lunder Case Brief

Wisconsin Supreme Court • 1975 • Docket #1385635
225 N.W.2d 442 66 Wis. 2d 563 1975 Wisc. LEXIS 1680

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

4 min read

tl;dr: The Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed how a husband’s claims for medical expenses and loss of consortium are affected by the comparative negligence of himself, his injured wife, and a third party, establishing a new rule for damage calculation.

Legal Significance: This case established that, for comparative negligence purposes in Wisconsin, a spouse’s claims for medical expenses and loss of consortium are derivative and subject to reduction by both the injured spouse’s and the claiming spouse’s negligence.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Rosemary White (wife) sustained bodily injuries due to the causal negligence of herself, her husband (Lloyd White), and a third party (James Lunder). A jury found Rosemary White 30% negligent, Lloyd White 33% negligent, and James Lunder 37% negligent. Lloyd White sued Lunder to recover for medical expenses incurred for his wife’s treatment and for his loss of consortium. The trial court, aggregating the negligence of Mr. and Mrs. White (totaling 63%), determined that their combined negligence exceeded Lunder’s (37%), thereby barring Mr. White’s recovery. Mr. White appealed, challenging the aggregation of spousal negligence and the characterization of his claims. The core dispute centered on how to apply Wisconsin’s comparative negligence statute when both the injured spouse and the spouse claiming derivative damages were contributorily negligent, alongside a third-party tortfeasor.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Under Wisconsin’s comparative negligence statute, how should a husband’s recovery for medical expenses and loss of consortium be determined when his wife’s injuries resulted from the combined causal negligence of the wife, the husband, and a third party?

Judgment reversed and remanded. The court held that both a husband’s claim Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolo

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Under Wisconsin’s comparative negligence statute, how should a husband’s recovery for medical expenses and loss of consortium be determined when his wife’s injuries resulted from the combined causal negligence of the wife, the husband, and a third party?

Conclusion

This decision clarified the treatment of spousal derivative claims under Wisconsin's comparative Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut a

Legal Rule

For purposes of applying Wisconsin's comparative negligence statute (Wis. Stat. § 895.045), Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur

Legal Analysis

The court acknowledged the confusing evolution of Wisconsin law regarding spousal claims Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupida

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • For comparative negligence purposes, a spouse’s claims for both medical expenses
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial