Legal Opinion

Hoepner v. City of Eau Claire

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 6, 1953PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurrie, J.

Counsel for plaintiff contend that the defendant city is liable in this action both under the safe-place statute and under principles of common-law negligence. With respect to the claimed liability under the safe-place statute, the argument is advanced that the ball-playing field was both a “place of employment” and a “public building” within the provisions of sec. 101.06, Stats., which provides as follows:

“Every employer shall furnish employment which shall be safe for the employees therein and shall furnish a place of employment which shall be safe for employees therein and for frequenters…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Caddy v. . Interborough Rapid Transit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1909
  2. People v. BulgerMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Bent v. JonetWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Bernstein v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Waldman v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of JanesvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Quesenberry v. Milwaukee CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Rogers v. City of OconomowocWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Smith v. City of JeffersonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Ball v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Rogers v. City of OconomowocWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API