Seibert v. Morris
| Decision Date | 11 May 1948 |
| Citation | 252 Wis. 460,32 N.W.2d 239 |
| Parties | SEIBERT et al. v. MORRIS et ux. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; Gustave G. Gehrz, judge.
Affirmed.
Action by Thomas Seibert, a minor, by Martin Seibert, guardian ad litem, and Martin Seibert in his individual capacity, plaintiffs, against Willam E. Norris and Marie Norris, his wife, defendants, commenced on July 11, 1945 to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when Thomas Seibert was struck by an arrow shot by the minor son of defendants. The case was tried to the court and a jury and, at the close of the evidence, verdict was directed in favor of defendants. On June 3, 1947 judgment was entered dismissing plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs appeal. The material facts will be stated in the opinion.
Kersten & McKinnon, of Milwaukee (J. P. McKinnon, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellants.
Spence & Hanley, of Milwaukee (William P. McGovern, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for respondents.
The facts of this case are not in serious dispute. Defendants' home is on Shoreland Avenue in the city of Milwaukee and faces east. Immediately south of the home is a driveway consisting of two strips of concrete with a grass boulevard ending in a concrete apron immediately to the front of a one-car garage located at the southwest corner of the defendants' lot. Immediately south of the driveway and garage was a garden extending to the rear lot-line of adjoining property. The garden was what was called a ‘victory garden’ and was worked by three families, one of them the defendants. The garden was sectioned into three parts, each approximating 30 x 30 feet in extent and was some three feet below the level of defendants' property. The garden thus ran along and below the concrete strips. To the north of the garage and west of the house was a yard approximately as wide and long as defendants' house. At the time of the accident the garage was empty and the sliding type door was open. William, the son of defendants, was fourteen years of age. He had sustained an injury to his leg, had been on crutches for several weeks and was not able to leave his own yard. He had acquired possession of an adult bow and arrowbelonging to his father and for a time on the day of the accident was shooting at a paper target. Some younger children came into the yard and at their request he began to shoot arrows into the air. Tommy Seibert, one of the plaintiffs, arrived in defendants' yard at about 6:45 P.M. and was present with four or five other youngsters. Tommy was ten years old. A neighbor was alone in the victory garden standing about twenty feet from the place where the accident happened. When William shot the arrow up in the air he stood in front of the garage about one foot east of the door line and before he shot each arrow he required the children to go into the garage or get under a table just outside the garage. One of the boys who was wearing a helmet used the table and the rest, including Tommy, went into the garage. While he was shooting the arrow Mrs. Morris came out of the rear side door of the house and asked William if he didn't think he should put the bow away in the basement. He said, ‘No, the kids are going under the table or in the garage and they won't get hurt.’ She said, ‘All right,’ or something of the sort and went into the garden to talk to her neighbor who was picking beans. William continued to shoot the arrow and the boys each time retreated to the garage or got under the table while he shot. The arrow would land at a different place after each shot. During the time all the shooting was going on the wife of defendant was in the garden visiting with her neighbor and was about twenty feet away. The accident happened when Tommy stuck his head out of the garage and looked. The arrow struck him a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gritzner v. Michael R.
...would clearly apply to Bubner's failure to control Michael's conduct. See Nieuwendorp, 191 Wis. 2d at 473, (citing Seibert v. Morris, 252 Wis. 460, 463, 32 N.W.2d 239 (1948)); Bankert, 110 Wis. 2d at ¶ 51. Although Bubner is not Michael's legal parent, the Gritzners' complaint alleges facts......
-
Bankert v. Threshermen's Mut. Ins. Co.
...Wis. 334, 210 N.W. 684 (1926). They may also be liable for their own negligence in the supervision of the child. Seibert v. Morris, 252 Wis. 460, 463, 32 N.W.2d 239, 240 (1948). 2 We do not reach the merits of either cause of action at this stage of the litigation. The question before us is......
-
Bankert by Habush v. Threshermen's Mut. Ins. Co.
...This term has never been used by this court; and, consistent with our adoption of Restatement, Torts 2d, sec. 316 in Seibert v. Morris, 252 Wis. 460, 32 N.W.2d 239 (1948), we conclude the tort is more appropriately referred to as one of "failure to In Seibert, p. 463, 32 N.W.2d 239, we adop......
-
Motter v. Snell, 49636
...place of danger at a time when his presence was not known nor reasonably to have been anticipated. Defendant also cites, Seibert v. Morris, 252 Wis. 460, 32 N.W.2d 239. A brief resume of the facts of that case indicates it has no application here. The son of the defendant, a boy fourteen, w......