Neitzke v. Kraft-Phenix Dairies, Inc.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
Every employer is required by sec. 101.06 of the statutes to furnish a place of employment safe for employees and frequenters and to adopt and use methods and processes reasonably adequate to render such employment and place of employment safe, “and shall do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety, and welfare of such employees and frequenters.” The employees of an independent contractor doing work upon the premises are “frequenters” within the terms of that statute. Sandeen v. Willow River Power Co., ante, p. 166, 252 N. W. 706.
The appellant, upon whom the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Rosholt v. Worden-Allen Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Washburn v. SkoggWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Sandeen v. Willow River Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Sparrow v. Menasha Paper Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Puza v. C. Hennecke Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Dykstra v. Arthur G. McKee & Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1979
- Young v. Anaconda American Brass Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
- Potter v. City of KenoshaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
- Umnus v. Wisconsin Public Service Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
- Mustas v. INLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.