Legal Opinion

Strack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 9, 1967PublishedCited by 39 opinions

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

  1. Zehren v. F. W. Woolworth Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Boutin v. Cardinal Theatre Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Caldwell v. Piggly Wiggly Madison Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Rhodes v. El Rancho MarketsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1966
  5. Pettric v. Gridley Dairy Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1930

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 2001
  3. Pimentel v. Roundup CompanyWashington Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Moultrey v. Great a & P Tea Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  5. Ciminski v. Finn Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1975

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API