Werner v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1960 |
| Citation | 8 Wis.2d 491,100 N.W.2d 920 |
| Parties | Alfons WERNER et al., Appellants, v. GIMBEL BROTHERS, INC., a Wis. corporation, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Stephen R. Miller, Milwaukee, for appellants.
Wickham, Borgelt, Skogstad & Powell, Milwaukee, Kurt H. Frauen, Milwaukee, of counsel, for respondent Gimbel Bros, Inc.
Moore & Moore, Milwaukee, for respondent Froedtert Enterprises.
Defendant Gimbel Brothers, Inc. submits that we did not decide the questions raised by Part II of Gimbel Brothers' initial brief. In substance Part II presents these contentions:
A. The place where plaintiff fell was not a place of employment of the defendant Gimbel Bros.
B. Gimbel Bros. had no control or responsibility under a lease as to the area on which plaintiff fell.
The first paragraph of our opinion summarized the decision of the trial court upon the issues which Gimbel Brothers now presents. However, defendant concludes that we did not adopt as our own such facts and conclusions of the trial court and, therefore, there is room for argument upon them now. We do now adopt the facts as so summarized.
On the record made in the trial we consider that the trial court's determination of facts and applicable law was correct upon the issues raised by defendant's Part II.
On the record made in the trial the sidewalk is shown to be constructed on private property to serve Gimbel's customers in passing between the store and the parking lot provided for them. The walk is a place of employment in so far as it concerns Gimbel Bros. If there is any uncertainty from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwenn v. Loraine Hotel Co.
...Nor do cases on the subject require ownership as a requisite of liability. Werner v. Gimbel Brothers, 1959, 8 Wis.2d 491, 99 N.W.2d 708, 100 N.W.2d 920. Thus, control and custody of the premises need not be exclusive, nor is it necessary to have control for all purposes. Criswell v. Seaman ......
-
Filipiak v. Plombon
...within the meaning of the Safe Place Statute, sec. 101.06, Stats. Werner v. Gimbel Bros. (1959), 8 Wis.2d 491, 493b, 99 N.W.2d 708, 100 N.W.2d 920. Accumulations of ice and snow on a walk or driveway constituting a place of employment may subject the employer to liability under the Safe Pla......
-
Caldwell v. Piggly-Wiggly Madison Co.
...of Kenosha (1955), 268 Wis. 361, 371, 68 N.W.2d 4, 10. See also Werner v. Gimbel Brothers (1959), 8 Wis.2d 491, 493, 493b, 99 N.W.2d 708, 100 N.W.2d 920; Schwenn v. Loraine Hotel Co. (1961), 14 Wis.2d 601, 607, 111 N.W.2d 459. This court said in Potter, supra, 268 Wis. page 372, 68 N.W.2d p......
-
Wittka v. Hartnell
...Schwenn v. Loraine Hotel Co. (1961), 14 Wis.2d 601, 111 N.W.2d 495; Werner v. Gimbel Brothers, Inc. (1959), 8 Wis.2d 491, 99 N.W.2d 708, 100 N.W.2d 920; Filipiak v. Plombon (1962), 15 Wis.2d 484, 113 N.W.2d 365; and Paepcke v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1953), 263 Wis. 290, 57 N.W.2d 352. In eac......