Ennis v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.

The appellant contends that the questions involved in findings (3) and (4) were jury questions. If so, the court erred in changing the jury’s findings and judgment should have been entered for the plaintiff.

The testimony does not show how long the step had been coated. The operator of the car testified that he removed ice or snow from the step before the beginning of the trip on which plaintiff was injured. While his testimony is somewhat indefinite as to just what he did, there is no evidence to dispute that he cleared the step properly. The plaintiff does not claim to have noticed ice on…