Kliegel v. Weisel & Vilter Manuf'g Co.

Decision Date10 January 1893
Citation84 Wis. 148,53 N.W. 1119
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
PartiesKLIEGEL v. WEISEL & VILTER MANUF'G CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county; D. H. JOHNSON, Judge.

Action for personal injuries by Jacob Kliegel against the Weisel & Vilter Manufacturing Company. Defendant had judgment, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by CASSODAY, J.:

The defendant is a corporation created and organized under the laws of Wisconsin, doing business in Milwaukee, and engaged in the manufacture of Corliss engines, machinery for brewers and bottlers, and ice-making and refrigerating machinery. The complaint alleges, in effect, that September 29, 1890, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant in said business; that in the course of such employment he was instructed and commanded by the defendant's foreman to assist in taking down and apart a certain machine, known as a “condenser,” the same being a part of the ice-making and refrigerating machinery manufactured by the defendant; that the defendant, not regarding its duty, conducted itself carelessly, negligently, and unskillfully in that behalf, by providing and maintaining unsafe, dangerous, and defective appliances in the support of said condenser, while the plaintiff was so engaged in taking down the same, of which said defendant had notice, and knowingly suffered to remain in such dangerous, defective, and unsafe condition, whereby a part of said condenser fell upon the plaintiff and greatly injured him, for which injury this action is brought. The answer consists of admissions and denials, and alleges contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. At the close of the plaintiff's testimony, the court granted a nonsuit, and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff brings this appeal.Bloodgood, Bloodgood & Kemper, for appellant.

Van Dyke & Van Dyke and Winkler, Flanders, Smith, Bottum & Vilas, for respondent.

CASSODAY, J., ( after stating the facts.)

It appears from the record, in effect, that the condenser in question consisted of 10 sections; that each section consisted of coiled 2-inch pipe, and was about 20 feet long, running north and south, about 5 1/2 feet high, and about 6 inches wide at the base; that these several sections stood some 18 or 20 inches apart, and parallel with each other, upon the floor, or on blocks upon the floor; that, in putting up such sections, they commenced first with the one at the west end, and then the one next to that, and so on towards the east, until the 10 were erected; that, after all the 10 sections were thus stationed, a header, consisting of 3-inch pipe, was raised at the ends of these several sections on one side by a crane and tackle, and then coupled or bolted to each of said sections; that such bolts were mostly put through from the inside, so that the nuts would be on the outside, where they could more easily be removed; that in pursuance of instructions from the defendant's foreman, for the better securing of such sections, the one on the west end, and perhaps others, were spiked to the floor or blocks, and wooden braces, consisting of pieces...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • New Deemer Mfg. Co. v. Alexander
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 1, 1920
    ...... v. Moudy (1905), 35. Ind.App. 427, 73 N.E. 188; Kliegel v. . Weisel & V. Mfg. Co. (1893), 84 Wis. 148, 53 N.W. 119; New ......
  • Kautz v. St. Louis Refrigerator Car Company
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 2, 1920
    ......I. 446; Richmond. Locomotive Works v. Ford, 94 Va. 627; Kliegel v. Weisel & Vilter Mfg. Co., 84 Wis. 148; Foley v. Railway Co., 64 ......
  • Wiskie v. Montello Granite Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • October 15, 1901
    ...the negligence occurs. Dwyer v. Express Co., 82 Wis. 307, 52 N. W. 304, 33 Am. St. Rep. 44, and cases there cited; Kliegel v. Manufacturing Co., 84 Wis. 148, 53 N. W. 1119;Stutz v. Armour, 84 Wis. 623, 54 N. W. 1000;Hartford v. Railroad Co., 91 Wis. 374, 379, 64 N. W. 1033;Prybilski v. Rail......
  • Kelly v. Lemhi Irrigation & Orchard Co., Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • October 2, 1917
    ......320; Bagley v. Consolidated Gas Co.,. 5 A.D. 432, 39 N.Y.S. 302; Kliegel v. Weisel & Vilter Mfg. Co., 84 Wis. 148, 53 N.W. 1119.). . . ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT