Nelson v. Shaw
| Decision Date | 21 February 1899 |
| Citation | 78 N.W. 417,102 Wis. 274 |
| Parties | NELSON v. SHAW. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Taylor county; John K. Parish, Judge.
Action by John Nelson against Fayette Shaw. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.Frawley, Bundy & Wilcox, for appellant.
Losey & Woodward, for respondent.
This action was commenced September 4, 1897, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained January 25, 1895, by the plaintiff, while in the employ of the defendant as a teamster hauling tan bark from the lands described, for a distance of about eight miles, to the defendant's tannery at Rib Lake, by reason of an alleged defective private branch roadway provided and used by the defendant and his employés in hauling such bark. Issue being joined, and trial had, the court, at the close of the testimony, directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff brings this appeal.
It appears and is undisputed that this branch roadway was built to get the bark to the main road, and was from one-half to three-fourths of a mile in length; that from the point where it connected with the main road it ran in a northeasterly direction, and was known as the “Mud Lake Branch”; that the portion of the roadway in controversy extended from its junction with the main road northeasterly; that at a point some 15 to 35 feet from its junction with the main road this bark roadway began to ascend a hill for a distance of about 105 feet; that the descent in that distance was a few inches less than 11 feet. There is evidence tending to prove that at or near the foot of such descent there was a ditch and gully which existed in the traveled track, and extended at right anges to the traveled track; that the ditch and gully were partially concealed from the plaintiff by a log; that the front bob of the sleigh was precipitated into the ditch and gully with a quick, sharp jolt and plunge, and the plaintiff was violently thrown off the load, and injured; that the plaintiff had had considerable experience working in the woods, building logging roads, hauling logs and bark; that he had put in logs and repaired roads for that purpose; that he began to haul bark for the defendant November 22, 1894, and, after working continuously in hauling on other roads, began to haul bark on this Mud Lake branch 6 or 7 days prior to the injury; that during that time he had passed over this road from 11 to 13 times,--the last time about 7 a. m. of the day on which the accident happened, and that time particularly observed its condition; that on the evening before the accident the plaintiff told defendant's foreman about the existence of the hole at the bottom of the hill, and that it was dangerous, and that he would quit work if the defendant did not fix the road; that the foreman then said he would have it fixed; that the plaintiff then asked him when he would do so, and he then promised that he would have it fixed before the plaintiff came out with another load the next morning; that on the morning in question several teams were driven on this road, loaded with bark; that the leading team--Knickerbocker's--was delayed at or near the intersection of the bark road with the main road by having its load, or part of it, fall off, which compelled the teams behind it to wait until it could be reloaded; that the plaintiff's team stopped for this reason just at the top of the hill described as being 105 feet long; that the plaintiff fastened his team at that place, and went across the lots to a shanty, to get a lunch, while waiting; that he remained there 15 or 20 minutes, and returned the same way to his team; that he did not walk down the hill to the place where the men were reloading...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yerkes v. N. Pac. Ry. Co.
...was pointed out in Curran v. A. H. Stange Co., 98 Wis. 606, 74 N. W. 377. See, also, Jensen v. Sawmill Co., supra; Nelson v. Shaw, 102 Wis. 274, 278, 78 N. W. 417. From these authorities it results that it cannot be said as matter of law that one is so guilty of contributory negligence in c......
- Little v. Town of Iron River
-
City of Superior v. Olt
...110 N.W. 210; Kelley v. Fond du Lac, 31 Wis. 179; Gerrard v. La Crosse C.R. Co., 113 Wis. 258, 89 N.W. 125, 57 L.R.A. 465; Nelson v. Shaw, 102 Wis. 274, 78 N.W. 417. We no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. ...
-
Dralle v. Town of Reedsburg
...under such circumstances, she was not guilty of negligence. Whether she was or not, was, we think, a question for the jury. Nelson v. Shaw, 102 Wis. 274, 78 N. W. 417. It follows that there was sufficient evidence to send the case to the jury on the negligence of respondent and the contribu......