Jochem v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 18 September 1888
• Citation: 72 Wis. 199,39 N.W. 383
• Parties: JOCHEM v. ROBINSON.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

72 Wis. 199

39 N.W. 383

JOCHEM

v.ROBINSON.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

September 18, 1888.

Appeal from Milwaukee county court.

It appears in the record that the defendant, Robinson, was a wholesale grocer, doing business on East Water street, in Milwaukee, January 11, 1882; that on that day he was engaged in transferring sugar in barrels into the front of his store from a sleigh in the street near the sidewalk; that for that purpose he employed a skid upon a toe-board, upon which he rolled the barrels from the sleigh into his store; that, while so engaged, the plaintiff, traveling upon the sidewalk, stepped one foot between the bars of the skid near the lower end of the toe-board, and the other foot upon the second bar of the skid, and then slipped and fell, and was injured; and this action is brought to recover damages therefor. There was an alley at the rear end of the store running from street to street. The answer admitted the use of the skid, and injury, and traversed other allegations of the complaint, and alleged contributory negligence. At the close of the trial the jury returned a special verdict to the effect (1) that the defendant, by his agents and servants, at and just prior to the time of the accident to the plaintiff, was about to unload into his store some 16 or 17 barrels of sugar of the weight of 300 pounds each; (2) that for that purpose the defendant caused the skid in question to be placed across the sidewalk; (2 1/2) that the plaintiff was injured by a fall caused by such skid so placed; (3) that said skid had not so remained upon the sidewalk for more than two minutes prior to the accident; (4) that the placing of the skid over the sidewalk was reasonably necessary for the convenient unloading of the barrels; (5) that the skid was not maintained upon the sidewalk for a longer time than was reasonably necessary to unload the barrels into the store; (6) that the plaintiff, in the exercise of ordinary care, could have safely passed around the skid at either end thereof; (6 1/2) that it was not consistent with reasonable care on the part of the plaintiff to attempt to pass over the skid; (7) that the defendant was not guilty of any negligence in respect to the accident in question; (8) that at the time said injury occurred, the unloading or loading of the sleigh for which the skid was used could not have been accomplished at the rear of the defendant's store without subjecting defendant to unreasonable inconvenience; (9) that the plaintiff was guilty of a want of ordinary care contributing to the injury in question; that they found for the defendant. From the judgment entered thereon, in pursuance of the order of the court, the plaintiff brings this appeal....