Winkler v. Fisher
| Decision Date | 23 February 1897 |
| Citation | 95 Wis. 355,70 N.W. 477 |
| Parties | WINKLER v. FISHER. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Waupaca county; Charles M. Webb, Judge.
Action by Marcellus Winkler against Frederick Fisher for personal injuries inflicted by defendant's servant. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Action for personal injury alleged to have been inflicted upon plaintiff by a servant of defendant. William Fisher, a son of defendant, about 16 years old, with a boy by the name of Bert Seeber, on or about the 19th day of August, 1894, while on a hunting expedition, stopped at the residence of a Mr. Mack, for the purpose of procuring a string with which to tie together some squirrels they had killed. Several persons were sitting on the steps of the porch, and plaintiff was sitting on a barrel at the end of the steps, which positions such persons kept until the happening of the accident hereafter mentioned. The Seeber boy went into the house for the string. The Fisher boy remained outside, and stood leaning on his gun, which stood in front of him, stock down, his hands resting on the muzzle. He was about 16 feet from plaintiff. In a few moments, the Seeber boy returned, and they both prepared to proceed on their hunting expedition. As they did so, the Fisher boy picked up his gun by the muzzle, and swung it over his head, for the purpose of resting it on the left shoulder. In making such movement, the gun left his hands, and went over his left shoulder, onto the ground, and was discharged. A shot struck some hard substance, from which it glanced, and struck plaintiff in the eye, causing the injury complained of. The complaint, by proper allegations,set forth that the Fisher boy was a servant of defendant at the time of the occurrence stated, and was then in pursuit of his employment as such servant; that he handled the gun in a negligent manner, thereby causing the injury to plaintiff; and that by reason of the relations existing between defendant and his son, of master and servant, the former was answerable for the negligence of the latter. The jury found for the plaintiff. Defendant's counsel moved the court to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, which was denied. Judgment was entered on the verdict in plaintiff's favor, and defendant appealed.
Felker, Goldberg & Felker, for appellant.
Cate, Jones & Sanborn, for respondent.
MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).
The master is liable for the negligent acts of his servant within the scope of the latter's employment. If the servant steps aside, however, from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v. Schreiber
...exists. It has been repeatedly sanctioned and applied in this court,--in the whole covering a variety of situations. Winkler v. Fisher, 95 Wis. 355, 70 N. W. 477;Bergman v. Hendrickson, 106 Wis. 434, 82 N. W. 304, 80 Am. St. Rep. 47;Johnston v. Railway Co., 130 Wis. 492, 110 N. W. 424;Cobb ......
-
Hopkins v. Droppers
...per se, and that he could not reasonably have anticipated the dangerous use of it by a boy to whom the son had lent it. In Winkler v. Fisher, 95 Wis. 355, 70 N. W. 477, a minor son was directed by his father to use a gun and shoot crows on the farm. He was to receive 10 cents for each crow ......
-
Sheboygan Airways, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n
...119 Wis. 597, 97 N. W. 276, 100 Am. St. Rep. 909;Bergman v. Hendrickson, 106 Wis. 434, 82 N. W. 304, 80 Am. St. Rep. 47;Winkler v. Fisher, 95 Wis. 355, 70 N. W. 477. In Radtke Bros. & Korsch Co. v. Rutzinski, 174 Wis. 212, 217, 183 N. W. 168, 170, that principle was applied as ground for de......
-
Hiroux v. Baum
...the question of the agency of Cecil we are cited by counsel for appellant to Kumba v. Gelham, 103 Wis. 312, 79 N. W. 325,Winkler v. Fisher, 95 Wis. 355, 70 N. W. 477, and Maddox v. Brown, 71 Me. 432, 36 Am. Rep. 336. In Kumba v. Gelham, supra, the son was clearly acting beyond the authority......