Schoenfeldt v. Babcock
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.
The trial court granted a nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff’s case, and we must determine whether such ruling was proper. Upon a motion for nonsuit, the evidence is to be viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff must also be given the benefit of the most-favorable inferences which can be deduced from the evidence. Bartz v. Braun (1961), 14 Wis. (2d) 425, 427, 111 N. W. (2d) 431; Lake Mills v. Veldhuizen (1953), 263 Wis. 49, 51, 56 N. W. (2d) 491.
There- are three principal matters which we will discuss: (1) Does the safe-place statute apply? (2) was there a duty…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Campbell v. SutliffWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
- Cross v. LeuenbergerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
- Schlicht v. ThesingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Lehman v. Amsterdam Coffee Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
- Boyd v. Logan Jones Dry Goods Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1937
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Williams v. Rank & Son Buick, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
- Nelson v. Travelers InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- State Ex Rel. Skibinski v. TadychWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Strelecki v. Firemans Insurance Co. of NewarkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979
- Geiger v. Milwaukee Guardian InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.