Legal Opinion

Palmer v. Henry Disston & Sons, Inc.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1952PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Spence v. American Oil Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1938
  2. Kramer v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Hatch v. SmailWisconsin Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Brown v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Nelson v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1948

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Stewart v. WulfWisconsin Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Rewolinski v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Mathias v. St. Catherine's Hospital, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API