Palmer v. Henry Disston & Sons, Inc.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
We are convinced that the trial court reached the correct result. If the question presented were other than one of law, a new trial might properly have been granted. However, the plaintiff was injured when a tree, on which he was pushing in an effort to control the direction of its fall, fell and bounced or rolled, and a branch struck his leg; and it appears from the statement of facts that, after the defendant had taken charge of the operation of felling the tree, plaintiff assumed the responsibility of a volunteer or rescuer, either in his own interest, to save the saw, or to assist the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Spence v. American Oil Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1938
- Kramer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- Hatch v. SmailWisconsin Supreme Court · 1946
- Brown v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
- Nelson v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stewart v. WulfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
- Rewolinski v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Mathias v. St. Catherine's Hospital, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1997