Legal Opinion

Candell v. Skaar

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1958PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

We conclude that there must be a new trial because of an inconsistency in the finding of the jury. Resolution of the inconsistency may result in a different finding on comparison of negligence. Other questions raised on the appeal will be discussed to the extent that may be helpful on a new trial.(1) Inconsistency in findings. The jury found that defendants failed in their duty under the safe-place statute in respect to the edges of the treads and the edge of the landing. In the light of the stipulations of the parties and the instructions of the court, this amounted to a finding that these…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bent v. JonetWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Umnus v. Wisconsin Public Service Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Holcomb v. SzymczykWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Waterman v. Heinemann Bros.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Kezar v. Northern States Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1944

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Barry v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Lee v. JunkansWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Erdmann v. FrazinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Bean v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1963
  5. Bellart v. MartellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

5 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