Williams v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
Does the evidence support the finding of defendant’s negligence
The defendant’s argument basically is that there could be no negligence when the jury found that the passengers had been discharged in a place of safety. It contends that when that duty had been discharged, it was absolved from further responsibility and that, as a matter of law, *406the bus operator could not be negligent in thereafter moving the bus forward. Defendant acknowledges that the law applicable to streetcars requires not only that the passenger be discharged in a place of safety, but that he also be given the opportunity…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Cirillo v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Gustin v. JohannesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Rewolinski v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Barber v. City of OshkoshWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Van Wie v. HillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Lincenberg v. IssenSupreme Court of Florida · 1975
- Jagmin v. Simonds Abrasive Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Victorson v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
- Bash v. Employers Mutual Liability InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- Buel v. La Crosse Transit Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.