Schmitt v. Seefeld
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Clark county: James O’Neill, Circuit Judge. This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries •alleged to have been sustained because of the negligence of the defendants in failing to guard and fence a saw and to provide a safe place for plaintiff to work.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Clark county: James O’Neill, Circuit Judge. This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries •alleged to have been sustained because of the negligence of the defendants in failing to guard and fence a saw and to provide a safe place for plaintiff to work. At the time the injuries were received the plaintiff was employed by the defendant partnership, which operates a mill in the city of Neillsville. lie was working at one end of a table, in the center of which revolved a twenty-eight-inch saw, used to prepare material for the mill.…
1Opinion of the CourtSiebeckeb, J.
The plaintiff claims that defendant was-guilty of negligence in failing to guard or cover the saw under the table bed above described, in that the omission made the-saw a dangerous appliance as regards employees in the discharge of their duties in operating the mill. It is urged that, under sec. 1636/, Stats. (1898), it was defendant’s duty to cover the saw so projecting under the table because it was “so-located as to be dangerous to employees in the discharge of their duties.” This section requires that “belting, shafting, gearing,” and various other appliances mentioned therein shall “be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kruck v. Wilbur Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
- Chapman v. PiechowskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913