Legal Opinion

De Keuster v. Green Bay & Western Railroad

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1953PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

Under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act it is a railroad’s duty to furnish a reasonably safe place for its employee to work and reasonably safe tools and appliances with which to work. This duty is not an absolute one but the railroad must exercise reasonable care to that end. Baltimore & Ohio S. W. R. Co. v. Carroll (1930), 280 U. S. 491, 50 Sup. Ct. 182, 74 L. Ed. 566. The employee has the burden of proving the negligence of the employer.

Defendant summarizes its argument here as follows:

“The defendant furnished the plaintiff with an appliance to climb atop the stack of ties — the natural…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. CarrollSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. WhitacreSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. v. WhitacreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1915
  4. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. MooreCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
  5. Hosic v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1888

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. ScielzoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
  2. Olson v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Frankovitch v. BurtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
  4. Shaurette v. Capitol Erecting Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  5. McCarty v. WeberWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953

4 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