Bembinster v. Aero Auto Parts, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 April 1959 |
| Citation | 7 Wis.2d 54,95 N.W.2d 778 |
| Parties | Frank J. BEMBINSTER, Respondent, v. AERO AUTO PARTS, Inc., Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Gorman & Gorman, Wausau, for appellant.
Schmit & Wurster, Merrill, for respondent.
The defendant first contends that the place where the accident occurred was not a part of the defendant's place of employment. The point of accident clearly was on the private crossing over the track of the railway company. The defendant contends that the fact it may have been allowed by the railway company to construct the crossing over its right-of-way for the convenience of defendant's employees and frequenters did not make the main line track a part of defendant's place of employment.
The defendant relies upon cases such as Dickson v. Industrial Commission, 261 Wis. 65, 51 N.W.2d 553, and International Harvester Co. v. Industrial Commission, 220 Wis. 376, 265 N.W. 193. The plaintiff admits that the defendant did not own the land upon which the private crossing was constructed but contends that the defendant had control thereof and that the case is governed by cases such as Potter v. City of Kenosha, 268 Wis. 361, 68 N.W.2d 4, and Johannsen v. Peter P. Woboril, Inc., 260 Wis. 341, 51 N.W.2d 53, and Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Industrial Commission, 197 Wis. 48, 221 N.W. 396.
The defendant further contends that even though it be held that the place where the accident occurred was a place of employment the complaint fails to allege that there was anything wrong with the construction of the private crossing as far as the materials, surface, and physical condition were concerned. The plaintiff admits that the alleged negligent act of the defendant was not at the exact point of the accident but contends that permitting the growth of brush which obscured plaintiff's view was the cause of the accident.
As a general rule, in pleading negligence only ultimate facts rather than evidentiary facts need to be pleaded. A complaint, when attacked by demurrer, should be liberally construed and sustained if it expressly, or by reasonable inference, states any cause of action. The trial court applied these rules of construction and held that the complaint stated a cause of action. We agree.
In addition to the cases mentioned above each of the parties cites and discusses other Wisconsin cases dealing with the subject of what constitutes a place of employment. We do not discuss the cases cited for the reason that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Padilla v. Bydalek
...v. Foulkes (1951), 259 Wis. 142, 47 N.W.2d 901; Harte v. Eagle River (1970), 45 Wis.2d 513, 173 N.W.2d 683; Bembinster v. Aero Auto Parts (1959), 7 Wis.2d 54, 95 N.W.2d 778; Weber v. Naas (1933), 212 Wis. 537, 250 N.W. 436. However, a complaint must still allege acts sufficient to show an i......
-
Rogers v. City of Oconomowoc
...be liberally construed and sustained if it expressly or by reasonable inference states any cause of action. Bembinster v. Aero Auto Parts, Inc. (1959), 7 Wis.2d 54, 95 N.W.2d 778. In Ball v. Madison (1957), 1 Wis.2d 62, 82 N.W.2d 894, a toboggan slide case, we held that to be considered a p......
-
Kagel v. Brugger
...meet. Colton v. Foulkes (1951), 259 Wis. 142, 47 N.W.2d 901; Weber v. Naas (1933), 212 Wis. 537, 250 N.W. 436; Bembinster v. Aero Auto Parts (1959), 7 Wis.2d 54, 95 N.W.2d 778. But the question on this demurrer is whether the complaint which fairly informs the defendant of what he is charge......
-
Harte v. City of Eagle River
...construed and sustained if it expressly, or by reasonable inference, states any cause of action. * * * ' Bembinster v. Aero Auto Parts (1959), 7 Wis.2d 54, 57, 95 N.W.2d 778, 780. Plaintiffs attached two exhibits to their complaint: A copy of a letter from plaintiffs' attorney to defendant'......