Legal Opinion

Bellart v. Martell

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1965PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

The safe-place statute, sec. 101.06, Stats., requires every owner of a place of employment or a public building to construct and maintain it so as to render the same as free from danger as the nature of the employment, place of employment, or public building, will reasonably permit. The learned circuit judge instructed the jury that Martell had this duty, under the circumstances of this case, both because the plant was a place of employment and a public building. If the instruction was correct with respect to its being a place of employment, it would be unnecessary to examine its status as a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bent v. JonetWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Sprinkle v. PonderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  3. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  4. Estate of Goltz v. MillerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Allison v. Wm. Doerflinger Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1932

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Rewolinski v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. State Ex Rel. Lutchin v. Outagamie County CourtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Uebele v. Oehmsen Plastic Greenhouse Manufacturing, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1985
  4. Barthel v. Wisconsin Electric Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  5. Bellart v. MartellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

1 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