Weihert v. Piccione
Decision Date | 09 October 1956 |
Citation | 273 Wis. 448,78 N.W.2d 757 |
Parties | Eleanor WEIHERT, Appellant, v. Frank PICCIONE, Respondent. Lawrence WEIHERT, Appellant, v. Frank PICCIONE, Respondent. Donald TISCHER, Appellant, v. Frank PICCIONE, Respondent. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Fisher & Fisher, Janesville, for appellants.
Jeffris, Mouat, Oestreich, Wood & Cunningham, Janesville, for respondent.
The learned trial court granted the defendant's motions for nonsuit on ground that sufficient evidence had not been introduced at the trial to support the averments of the complaints. The challenge here is to such ruling.
A motion for a nonsuit is equivalent to a demurrer to the evidence. In passing upon such motion, it is incumbent upon the court to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the court must give the plaintiff the benefit of the most favorable inferences that can reasonably be deduced therefrom. City of Lake Mills v. Veldhuizen, 1953, 263 Wis. 49, 56 N.W.2d 491.
The evidence of record, most favorable to the contention of the appellants, is as follows:
Mrs. Weihert also testified that she had observed a disturbance in the restaurant on a previous occasion when there was an altercation between some truck drivers. She said it was just a scuffle and was over just as quickly as it started. She also stated that she witnessed no other fight or altercation excepting small arguments that happen almost everywhere. She also testified that although she did not know John Powers, she had seen him in the restaurant on a previous occasion. At that time she delayed waiting on Powers and his party for reason that she was serving others. Powers used abusive language, and his group appeared to have been drinking. On that occasion, although Powers departed from the restaurant before Mrs. Weihert left, and she had been advised by another waitress and by Piccione to wait a while, nevertheless she was not afraid to go to her car alone, and in fact did so. In her adverse examination Mrs. Weihert testified that the assault by Powers 'took her completely by surprise.'
The plaintiff, Donald Tischer, in part testified as follows:
In cross-examination the plaintiff, Tischer, testified:
Called adversely as a witness at the trial, the defendant, Frank Piccione, testified that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Delvaux v. Vanden Langenberg
...or by giving a warning adequate to enable them (injured patron ) to avoid harm." (Nonparenthetical emphasis added.) See also, Weihert v. Piccione, 273 Wis. 448, 455-"56, 78 N.W.2d 757 (1956). This instruction, originally numbered Wis. J I--Civil 1027.5, was read to the jury by Judge The pla......
-
Olson v. Ratzel, 77-637
...(Second) of Torts, §§ 440, 447, and 448 (regarding foreseeability and superseding cause) (1965); Compare generally Weihert v. Piccione, 273 Wis. 448, 78 N.W. 757 (1956) with Kowalczuk v. Rotter, 63 Wis.2d 511, 217 N.W.2d 332 (1974) (proprietor's duty to foresee and act to prevent injury to ......
-
Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel
...care have enforced this right prior to the time plaintiff was injured. The question was one for the jury.' See, also, Weihert v. Piccione, 273 Wis. 448, 78 N.W.2d 757; Pfeifer v. Standard Gateway Theater, Inc., 259 Wis. 333, 48 N.W.2d 505; Fortier v. Hibernian Bldg. Ass'n, 315 Mass. 446, 53......
-
Trogun v. Fruchtman
...36, 40, 152 N.W.2d 865.5 Beaudoin v. Watertown Memorial Hospital (1966), 32 Wis.2d 132, 136, 145 N.W.2d 166, 168.6 Weihert v. Piccione (1956), 273 Wis. 448, 450, 78 N.W.2d 757. See als, Leibmann v. Busalacchi (1971), 52 Wis.2d 692, 695, 191 N.W.2d 31.7 (1913), 152 Wis. 426, 432, 140 N.W. 30......