Legal Opinion

James v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1954PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.

Liability was asserted under the “attractive-nuisance doctrine.” The rule is stated in Restatement, 2 Torts, p. 920, sec. 339:

“A possessor of land is subject to liability for bodily harm to young children trespassing thereon caused by a structure or other artificial condition which he maintains upon the land, if
“(a) the place where the condition is maintained is one upon which the possessor knows or should know that such children are likely to trespass, and
“(b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or should know and which he realizes or should realize as involving an unreasonable…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Znidersich v. Minnesota Utilities Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
  2. McKiddy v. Des Moines Electric Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1926
  3. Angelier v. Red Star Yeast & Products Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Brady v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Zartner v. GeorgeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Wytupeck v. City of CamdenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
  2. Texas Utilities Electric Co. v. TimmonsTexas Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Nechodomu v. LindstromWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Christians Ex Rel. Davis v. Homestake Enterprises, Ltd.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Massino v. SmaglickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958

6 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