Williams v. International Oil Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBroadfoot, J.
The plaintiff contends that the defendant violated the provisions of sec. 101.06, Stats., known as the “safe-place statute.” The defendant, on the other hand, contends that the light pole was not a place of employment within the meaning of that statute. It cites several cases in which recovery was sought from municipalities or eleemosynary institutions which, of course, have no application here.
Some confusion still arises because the duties of owners of public buildings and places of employment are covered in the same section of the statute. The obligation of the owner of a public building to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Neitzke v. Kraft-Phenix Dairies, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Pettric v. Gridley Dairy Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
- Jaeger v. Evangelical Lutheran Holy Ghost CongregationWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- Kaczmarski v. F. Rosenberg Elevator Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
- Saxhaug v. Forsyth Leather Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Turk v. H. C. Prange Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Mustas v. INLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Uhrman v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
- Niedfelt v. Joint School District No. 1 of City of ViroquaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Frankovis v. Klug & Smith Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.