Brothers v. Berg
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.
On behalf of the defendant Berg it is contended that where a safety rule or a safety statute is complied with there is no room for a finding that the person complying therewith has been guilty of a want of ordinary care, citing Bent v. Jonet, 213 Wis. 635, 252 N. W. 290, and Bentley Bros., Inc., v. Industrial Comm. 194 Wis. 610. 217 N. W. 316. We are cited to sec. 85.06 (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), Stats., and Orders Nos. 2161 and 2162 of the industrial commission made pursuant thereto, from which it appears that a King Bee five-inch red reflector is an approved type.
Assuming that the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bent v. JonetWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Scharine v. HuebschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Kleist v. CohodasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
- Bentley Bros. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
- Colby Cheese Box Co. v. DallendorferWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
3Cited by5 opinions
- Schroeder v. KuntzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
- Porterfield v. SudduthWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1936
- Zoellner v. KaiserWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
- Ott v. TschantzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
- Schroeder v. KuntzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953