City of Milwaukee v. Meyer
| Decision Date | 07 April 1931 |
| Parties | CITY OF MILWAUKEE v. MEYER ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; August E. Braun, Circuit Judge. Reversed.
Action by the City of Milwaukee, a municipal corporation, plaintiff, commenced on the 28th day of March, 1929, against Henry A. Meyer, Sophie Meyer, C. J. Meyer, Arnold F. Meyer, William J. Meyer, Helen Koch, Dorothy Biersach, and Ernestine Biersach, co-partners doing business under the firm name and style of Milwaukee Tug Boat Line, William L. Bearmann, Henry Etzel, and Interstate Steamship Company, a foreign corporation, defendants. From a judgment rendered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff on the 12th day of July, 1930, the plaintiff, City of Milwaukee, appeals.John M. Niven, City Atty., and Andrew W. Brunhart, Asst. City Atty., both of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Stover & Stover, of Milwaukee, for respondents.
Plaintiff brings this action to recover damages sustained by the Sixth street bridge and viaduct, built and maintained by the city of Milwaukee, over and across the Menomonee river in said city. The damage resulted when the steamship B. F. Jones ran into or collided with the abutment of said bridge. Certain of the defendants who were charged with responsibility in the matter of maneuvering the steamship through the bridge were found guilty of negligence by the jury, which negligence, the jury also found, constituted a cause of the collision. The jury further found that certain negligent conduct on the part of the harbor master of the city of Milwaukee contributed to produce the collision in question. Because of the contributory negligence of the harbor master, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. The alleged negligence of the harbor master consisted in mooring a scow at a point below the bridge where it interfered with the movements of a tug so as to prevent its proper operation in order to maneuver the steamship through the bridge.
Section 8 of an Ordinance of the City of Milwaukee, passed July 6, 1909, provides as follows:
It appears that a scow was moored at a point above the bridge where it interfered with navigation, and at the request of the owner of the steamship B. F. Jones the scow was removed by the harbor master from its then location and moored at a point below the bridge where it interfered with the movements of the tug which was assisting the steamship through the bridge. The location of the scow was changed before the steamer B. F. Jones went up the river, and its presence at the changed location interfered with the maneuvering of the B. F. Jones through the bridge upon its return trip. It is conceded that at the time of the collision the scow was moored at a place where the ordinance prohibits vessels, crafts, and floats from being “laid up” in the North Menomonee canal.
It is contended that the harbor master did not leave the scow where it was at the time of the collision, and that, if it had remained where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindemann v. City of Kenosha
...its officers or agents while engaged in the discharge of public or governmental functions. Apfelbacher v. State, supra; City of Milwaukee v. Meyer (Wis.) 235 N. W. 768. Whether the issue or revocation of a building permit is a governmental function has not heretofore been specifically consi......
-
Waisman v. Wagner
...not apply between a city and its officers or agents while they are engaged in the discharge of a governmental function. Milwaukee v. Meyer, 204 Wis. 350, 235 N.W. 768. The appellant concedes this but claims that in procuring the release the parties procuring it were exercising for the city ......
- Mattson v. Mattson