Legal Opinion

Bradstrom v. Lasker Jewelers

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1951PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The safe-place statute under which the actions are brought provides:

“101.01 . . . (11) The term‘safe’or‘safety’as applied to ... a public building, shall mean such freedom from danger to the life, health, safety, or welfare of . . . frequenters, or the public, ... as the nature of the . . . public building, will reasonably permit.”

It is conceded for the purposes of this appeal that the duty imposed by the statute is owed by defendants to plaintiffs. The issue is whether a finding by a jury that the place was not as safe as its nature would reasonably permit could be sustained if there was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bunce v. Grand & Sixth Building, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Erbe v. MaesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Prehn v. C. Niss & Sons, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Helms v. Fox Badger Theatres Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1948

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Prelipp v. Wausau Memorial HospitalWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Holmberg v. Indianhead Oil Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API