Metz v. Medford Fur Foods, Inc.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
We consider that the learned trial court correctly' overruled the demurrer to the defense of waiver and assumption of risk because the purchaser was a director of defendant corporation. If plaintiff is in fact guilty of contributory negligence in the use of defendant’s product that may defeat his claim but we agree that such a defense is not established by proof merely that he was one of defendant’s directors.
The other affirmative defense is that plaintiff’s agreement, to hold defendant harmless in all respects from liability arising from the use of defendant’s products, defeats any cause of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Kuhl Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Menominee River Boom Co. v. Augustus Spies Lumber & Cedar Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
- Chapman v. ZakzaskaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
- McAleavy v. LoweWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
- Arndt Bros. Minkery v. Medford Fur Foods, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
3Cited by11 opinions
- McConville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Hargis v. BaizeKentucky Supreme Court · 2005
- Lukaszewicz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1981
- Perry Creek Cranberry Corp. v. Hopkins Agricultural Chemical Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Tri City Fur Foods, Inc. v. AmmermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.