Stellmacher v. Wisco Hardware Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.
Counsel for plaintiff complains because he was not permitted to submit the case upon a general verdict. He urges as error the court’s failure to submit “the omnibus question covering all the alleged defects which rendered the place and means of employment unsafe.”
The allegations of the complaint were vague and manifold. There was an allegation that the platform was slippery from snow; that the dolly which defendant provided was not equipped with brakes; and that the ground was rutted, causing the platform of plaintiff’s truck to be a foot below defendant’s loading platform.
The main facts upon…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Matuschka v. MurphyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
- Holzworth v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
- Nimits v. Motor Transport Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
- Hacker v. HeineyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Heucke v. Milwaukee City RailwayWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Megal v. Green Bay Area Visitor & Convention Bureau, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
- Paluch v. Baldwin Plywood & Veneer Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
- Johnson v. SipeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
- Megal v. VISITOR & CONVENTION BUREAUWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
- Fondow v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Transport Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1953
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.