Strack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHallows, J.
The safe-place statute requires a place of employment to be kept as safe as the nature of the premises reasonably permits. There is no question that the A & P store was a place of employment or that Nellie Strack was a frequenter thereof or that she slipped on the little Italian prune and suffered certain injuries. The issue is whether A & P had sufficient notice of the presence of the plum on the floor so that it can be held negligent for failing to remove it. Since the owner of a place of employment is not an insurer of frequenters of his premises, Paaske v. Perfex Corp. (1964), 24 Wis.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Zehren v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Boutin v. Cardinal Theatre Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Caldwell v. Piggly Wiggly Madison Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Rhodes v. El Rancho MarketsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1966
- Pettric v. Gridley Dairy Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1983
- Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 2001
- Pimentel v. Roundup CompanyWashington Supreme Court · 1983
- Moultrey v. Great a & P Tea Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Ciminski v. Finn Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1975
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.