O'Connor v. Pawling & Harnischfeger Co.

The appellant company by its cross-complaint, which was sustained in 185 Wis. 226, 201 N. W. 393, asserts that it was the duty of the railway company to in*326spect all cars and loads; that the performance of this duty by the railway company relieved the Pawling & Harnisch-feger Company of all duty to examine or inspect cars before they were moved on the industrial spur tracks of the appellant, and that the injury to the plaintiff was caused wholly by the negligence of the railway company. The proof does not warrant this conclusion.

Plaintiff’s injury was proximately caused by the conjunction of…