Legal Opinion

Moen v. Madison Railways Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 1932PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.

The first contention of the appellant is that the complaint fails to state a cause of action because it fails to charge the motorman with the doing of any negligent act or with the negligent omission to do any act causing plaintiff’s injury. This contention is chiefly predicated upon the well-established rule that the operator of a street car is not negligent in opening the street-car door to enable a passenger to alight, without warning the passenger of the danger of injury from a passing vehicle. Downs v. Northern States Power Co. 200 Wis. 401, 228 N. W. 471. In the Downs Case the complaint…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hartnett v. Boston StoreIllinois Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Miller v. LaingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1931
  3. Hendley v. Chicago & Nortwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Downs v. Northern States Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Lippert v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1910

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Baier v. Cleveland Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Brady v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Weber v. NaasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Balzer v. CaldwellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Moen v. Madison Railways Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934

2 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