Barowski v. Schultz
| Decision Date | 17 December 1901 |
| Citation | 112 Wis. 415,88 N.W. 236 |
| Parties | BAROWSKI v. SCHULTZ ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county; Lawrence W. Halsey, Judge.
Action by Herman Barowski against Minnie Schultz and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.Howard, Van Wyck & Groth, for appellants.
Bohmerich & Maher, for respondent.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the building of the defendants. The defendants demurred on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This is an appeal from the order overruling such demurrer. The complaint is to the effect that August 18, 1899, the defendants were copartners in business and the owners and in possession of the building and premises described, wherein they carried on the business of manufacturing paper boxes; that on that day the plaintiff was lawfully, and at the special instance and request of the defendants, upon the premises and in the building for the purpose of doing certain tinsmith work and to assist in such work upon the roof of the defendants' building aforesaid; that upon the lower floor of the building the defendants negligently kept and maintained an open, unguarded hatchway, through which an elevator platform was used to move up and down, and immediately north of said open hatchway was the regular and established passageway for persons coming from the upper stories of the building and passing out of the same and through a certain west entrance thereof; that the open, unguarded hatchway in close proximity to the passageway was insufficiently lighted, and the location thereof dangerous, all of which was well known to the defendants; that the plaintiff, on that day, and while in the discharge of his duties, and while coming from the upper stories of the building, and while walking toward the west entrance thereof, the said lower floor and the hatchway not being guarded, but insufficiently lighted, and negligently left unguarded and open by the defendants, their agents, servants, and employés, and without any fault on the part of the plaintiff, he not being aware of any danger, nor anything of danger being apparent, nor anything of warning being apparent or sounded, and the plaintiff being unconscious of any danger, then and there stepped into the open space of the hatchway, and was thrown down into the basement of the building with great force, and was then and there severely injured and damaged; that through such negligence of the defendants, their agents, servants, and employés, the plaintiff suffered permanent injuries by having his left upper leg broken and fractured, cut, mangled, etc.
In respect to public highways the rule has long been settled in this state that: “To render a town liable for injury by reason of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bates v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
...v. Nat. Dist. Co., 114 Wis. 279, 90 N. W. 191;Bennett v. Louisville, etc., Ry. Co., 102 U. S. 577, 26 L. Ed. 235;Barowski v. Schulz, 112 Wis. 415, 88 N. W. 236; 3 Thompson, Neg. §§ 2678, 2709, 2710; Bremer v. Pleiss, 121 Wis. 61, 98 N. W. 945; 1 Thomp. Neg. § 993; Banderob v. Wis. Cent. Ry.......
-
Prince v. United States
...a snare or trap there into which the invited person falls while exercising ordinary care, and escape liability therefor. Barowski v. Schulz, 112 Wis. 415, 88 N.W. 236. We should be slow to say that an ordinary open stairway or hatchway in the storage part of a store could be called a trap o......
-
Schoenfeldt v. Babcock
...a snare or trap there into which the invited person falls while exercising ordinary care, and escape liability therefor. Barowski v. Schulz, 112 Wis. 415, 88 N.W. 236. We should be slow to say that an ordinary open stairway or hatchway in the storage part of store could be called a trap or ......
- Crocker v. Huntzicker