Palmer v. Janesville Improvement Co.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1928 |
| Citation | 195 Wis. 607,219 N.W. 437 |
| Parties | PALMER v. JANESVILLE IMPROVEMENT CO. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Rock County; George Grimm, Circuit Judge.
Action by John Palmer against the Janesville Improvement Company. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.-- [By Editorial Staff.]
Action commenced the 4th day of October, 1927; judgment entered December 12, 1927. Personal injury. The defendant was the owner of a building on one of the principal business streets of Janesville, known as the Beverly Theater building. Over the entrance to the building was a canopy constructed of steel with a roof composed of glass either stained or painted, black on the top and green on the under side. Above this canopy there was erected a large electric sign with the word “Beverly” in electric lights. Employees of the lighting company and of the theater occasionally went upon this roof for the purpose of making repairs and to attend to the upkeep of the sign and the building. The situation is best disclosed by the reproduction herewith of part of Defendant's Exhibit 8.
The plaintiff, an employee of a tent and awning company, was called to the building on June 10, 1927, to measure the windows over the canopy upon the second floor of the building. Plaintiff testified:
From the wooden part of the window sill down to the canopy it is three feet, and from the stone portion of the window sill down to the canopy it is two and a half feet. It is quite apparent that the plaintiff either jumped down or slid down onto the top of the roof. He sustained severe injuries from breaking through the top of the canopy. Other facts will be stated in the opinion.
At the close of the plaintiff's testimony, defendant's motion for a nonsuit was granted. From the judgment, the plaintiff appeals.
Nolan, Dougherty, Grubb & Ryan, of Janesville, for appellant.
George G. Sutherland, of Janesville (Jeffris, Mouat, Oestreich, Avery & Wood, of Janesville, of counsel), for respondent.
It was admitted upon the trial that the building in question was a public building within the statutory definition. Section 101.01...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muscoda Bridge Co. v. Worden-Allen Co.
... ... In the one case it would seem a great hardship to tie up public improvement because of some trifling injury to the complainant, the amount of which injury was not attainable ... The same idea is well illustrated in a number of cases in our own state. In Janesville Bridge Co. v. Stoughton, 1 Pin. 667, 673, it is said: To entitle a party to an injunction or to the ... ...
-
Bogust v. Iverson
...must be found a duty resting upon the person against whom recovery is sought and then a breach of that duty. Palmer v. Janesville Improvement Co., 1928, 195 Wis. 607, 219 N.W. 437; Miller v. Welworth Theatres, 1956, 272 Wis. 355, 75 N.W.2d Defendant is not a person qualified as a medical do......
-
Jones v. Wis. Mich. Power Co.
...of the question we are squarely faced with the need to determine what duty, it any, defendant owed to plaintiff. Palmer v. Janesville Imp. Co., 195 Wis. 607, 219 N.W. 437. Plaintiff seeks to establish the fact that reduction of the water level in the mill-pond in this instance was unlawful ......