Legal Opinion

Moen v. Madison Railways Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1929PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

A mere general allegation of negligence is a conclusion of law rather than an allegation of fact, and is not admitted by a demurrer. The allegations of “adequate” and “proper” warning, if they are to be construed as a statement that the motorman either heard, or by the exercise of due care would have heard, the warning, are also conclusions rather than facts. It is of the essence of negligence that the person charged should have knowledge that there was a duty for him to perform; knowledge of the facts out of which the duty to act arises is essential; in order that an .act or omission may be…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Routt v. LookWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Wickert v. Wisconsin Central Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Case v. HobartWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Weber v. NaasWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Swinkels v. Wisconsin Michigan Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Weber v. Interstate Light & Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Shaw v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
  5. Moen v. Madison Railways Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934

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