Hromek v. Gemeinde
| Decision Date | 12 June 1941 |
| Citation | 298 N.W. 587,238 Wis. 204 |
| Parties | HROMEK v. GEMEINDE et al. (two cases). |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from two judgments of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; Daniel W. Sullivan, Judge.
Judgment affirmed as to defendant Freie Gemeinde; judgment reversed as to defendant union, with directions.
These were separate actions commenced in the civil court for Milwaukee county on December 30, 1936, by Beatrice Hromek and John Hromek, plaintiffs, respectively, against Freie Gemeinde, a corporation, defendant, to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff Beatrice Hromek when she stumbled over a platform in a hall owned and operated by Freie Gemeinde and leased for the purposes of meetings to United Automobile Workers Federal Labor Union No. 19059, of which plaintiff was a member. On motion of defendant the labor union was interpleaded. The actions were tried together to the court and a jury, and a special verdict returned. Freie Gemeinde was found negligent in the following respects: (1) Failing to provide for lighting facilities; (2) failing to properlyplace a railing or other guard upon the platform upon which plaintiff fell; and (3) improperly placing or locating this platform. The defendant union was found negligent in respect of permitting the platform to remain in an improper and unsafe position and failing to warn plaintiff of the danger of falling over it. Plaintiff was found free from negligence. Through a clerical error judgment was not entered against the labor union in the civil court. On motion of defendant Freie Gemeinde the record was remanded to permit a motion to amend the judgment, and on January 16, 1940, the civil court ordered judgment against the interpleaded union for contribution. Upon appeal the circuit court affirmed the judgments of the civil court. Defendants appeal. The material facts will be stated in the opinion.
Bender, Trump & McIntyre, of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Padway, Goldberg & Tarrell and David Previant, all of Milwaukee, for respondent.
Max Raskin and Wm. F. Quick, both of Milwaukee, for interpleaded defendant and appellant.
The accident giving rise to this litigation occurred May 17, 1935. Plaintiff Beatrice Hromek was an employee of the Seaman Body Corporation and a member of defendant labor union. Defendant Freie Gemeinde is a corporation which owns and operates a public building known as Jefferson Hall in the city of Milwaukee, and leases meeting rooms in this building. On the evening in question defendant labor union had rented the hall for a meeting and plaintiff Beatrice Hromek entered the hall for the purpose of participating in this meeting. The hall was leased to numerous tenants for different kinds of meetings, requiring different arrangements of chairs, platforms and equipment. Freie Gemeinde had a manager in charge of the hall who had his living quarters in the building and was at the service of tenants. It appears in evidence that the union wished a platform placed at the rear of the hall for use by its vice-president. The platform, about six feet square and six to eight inches high, was so placed that it obstructed to some extent the space immediately to the rear of the center aisle. The aisle referred to was made by the placing of chairs. The platform was not permanently fixed to the floor but was moved about or taken out of the room according to the needs of the various tenants. At the entrance to the hall there were two tables, one on each side of the entrance, and officers of the union were stationed there to insure that only members of the union who had paid their dues could enter the hall. On the evening in question Beatrice Hromek entered the hall, after showing her credentials. She walked a few steps through a crowd of men who were standing around the platform and then stumbled over the platform and fell, sustaining the injuries for which she seeks recovery here. She did not see the platform before she fell and did not know of its presence because she had never attended meetings in that hall. The meeting had not started at the time she entered the hall. Some people were seated and numerous persons were standing around the entrance and in the vicinity of the platform, thus cloaking her view of the platform and requiring her to crowd through the persons standing in the rear. The hall was lighted with eight lights at the top of the ceiling and three lights below its balcony. The center lights were of 200 watts each and those below the balcony of 100 watts each. These lights were regulated from the stage and were turned on about 7 o'clock p. m.
[1] It is contended by defendant Freie Gemeinde that a verdict should have been directed because under the evidence Freie Gemeinde is a religious society and therefore not liable for common-law negligence in the maintenance of its building. Jaeger v. Evangelical Lutheran Holy Ghost Cong., 219 Wis. 209, 262 N.W. 585, is claimed to be on all fours with this case. In that case it was held that the defendant as owner of the building was not liable under the safe-place statute for temporary conditions existing in the building and having nothing to do with its construction or the maintenance of its structural integrity. It was there conceded that the defendant was a religious organization and not liable for negligence. The complaint here simply alleges the corporate character of Freie Gemeinde. No facts showing the immunity of Freie Gemeinde from liability for common-law negligence were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Inglis v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 12
...other members from whom he would collect, and affirmed a judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict; and in Hromek v. Gemeinde, 238 Wis. 204, 298 N.W. 587, union liability was denied to a member for its negligence in maintaining a hall on the theory the officers were not only ac......
-
Hall v. Walters, 16944
...We are not presently concerned with, and express no opinion as to, the attempted action of a member against his union. as in Hromack v. Gemeinde, 238 Wis. 204, 298 N.W . 587, and Marchitto v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 9 N.J. 456, 88 A.2d 851, which are cited in the brief of the appellant uni......
-
Martin v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company
...rehearing denied 341 U.S. 906, 71 S.Ct. 611, 95 L.Ed. 1345; Atkinson v. Thompson, Tex.Civ.App.1958, 311 S.W.2d 250; Hromek v. Gemeinde, 1941, 238 Wis. 204, 298 N.W. 587. Moreover, this principle of joint responsibility has been applied in numerous cases involving unincorporated associations......
-
Fray v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 248
...of their common agent, which he cannot do. The defendant relies, as did the lower court, on this court's decision in Hromek v. Gemeinde, 1941, 238 Wis. 204, 298 N.W. 587. In the Hromek Case suit was for personal injuries by the plaintiff who was a member of the interpleaded defendant union ......