Hoth v. Peters
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for MihoauJcee County. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassodat : “ This is au appeal from au order overruling the demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for MihoauJcee County. The case is thus stated by Mr. Justice Cassodat : “ This is au appeal from au order overruling the demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The complaint, in effect, alleges that at the time mentioned the defendants were copartners, residing at Manistee, Michigan, and doing business as dealers in lumber, in Milwaukee, under the firm name of Peters <& Engebnmx; that the plaintiff was employed to work as an ordinary laborer in their lumber yard in Milwaukee by one Graham,…
1Opinion of the CourtCassoday, J.
There is no allegation in the complaint of the exercise of ordinary care, or any care, by the plaintiff at the time and place of the injury. Eor aught that appears he knew the car in question was going to be started at the very time it was started. Ordinarily, in actions for negligence, the plaintiff need not allege nor prove that he was not himself negligent. In such case contributory negligence is generally a matter of defense. Randall v. N. W. Tel. Co., 54 *410Wis., 147. Even where there is no evidence in the case except upon the part of the plaintiff, yet if there is any doubt about the…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Prideaux v. City of Mineral PointWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
- Dorsey v. Phillips & Colby Construction Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1877
- Naylor v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Randall v. Northwestern Telegraph Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Townley v. Chicago, MilwauKee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Darrigan v. New York & New England RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1885
- Peschel v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Hulehan v. Green Bay, Winona & St. Paul RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
- McNamara v. Village of ClintonvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- McLimans v. City of LancasterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.