Euting v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the' circuit court for Renosha' county: E. B. Belden, Circuit Judge. This is an action for personal injuries. Many of the facts-■are undisputed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the' circuit court for Renosha' county: E. B. Belden, Circuit Judge. This is an action for personal injuries. Many of the facts-■are undisputed. It appears tbat in May, 1899, tbe defendant company constructed a temporary spur track along one ■of tbe streets of tbe city of Kenosha running into a public park in tbat city (in wbicb a library building was being constructed) for tbe purpose of delivering materials for tbe construction of,,the building; tbat tbe track was not fenced; tbat on tbe morning of July 6, 1899, a switch engine operated by an engineer and fireman…
1Opinion of the CourtWiNsnow, J.
The respondent’s contention (which seems to have been adopted by the trial court) is, in brief, that the uncontradicted evidence shows that there was no occasion for the use of the torpedo' in the transaction of the defendant’s business; that it was placed in the care of the ’engineer, and the fireman had no authority to take it; that the fireman took it without the knowledge of the •engineer, and placed it upon the track for his own amuse*16ment; tíiat in so doing be was entirely outside the scope of" his employment, and hence that bis principal is not responsible for the results of bis act. If…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Alsever v. Minneapolis & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
3Cited by18 opinions
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. CurrieTexas Supreme Court · 1906
- Barmore v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1904
- MacNeil v. PerkinsArizona Supreme Court · 1958
- Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Stone v. Sinclair Refining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1923
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.