Legal Opinion · Dissent

Peters v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1935Published

1DissentFowler, J.

{dissenting). I dissent from the decision of the court in this case. I concede that the decision would be correct, and that the cases cited in the opinion of the court would support the decision, but for the fact that the jury might properly infer from the evidence that the plaintiff was invited by the motorman to cross ahead of the street-car, and that the motorman should have stopped the car before it reached the plaintiff’s line of travel. None of the cases cited in the opinion contains either of these facts. If the motorman did not extend the invitation, the plaintiff was negligent as…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Tesch v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Dahinden v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Grimm v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Simoneau v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Connor v. Pittsburg Railways Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1912

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

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

Powered by the Exa API