Legal Opinion

Morrison v. Steinfort

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided November 17, 1948PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBroadfoot, J.

Only one of the questions sought to be raised is properly presented on this appeal. The order on the motion to make more definite and certain is not an appealable order under the provisions of sec. 274.33, Stats.

In support of his demurrer to the amended complaint, the appellant claims there was no duty on' the part of Steinfort under the safe-place statute to furnish Morrison with a safe place to work because the relationship of employer and employee did not exist between them’. We agree that Steinfort was not Morrison’s employer. However, Morrison was a frequenter, and under sec. 101.06,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Neitzke v. Kraft-Phenix Dairies, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Holzworth v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Sandeen v. Willow River Power Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Mickelson v. Cities Service Oil Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1947

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Megal v. Green Bay Area Visitor & Convention Bureau, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Mustas v. INLAND CONSTRUCTION, INC.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Paluch v. Baldwin Plywood & Veneer Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Megal v. VISITOR & CONVENTION BUREAUWisconsin Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Black Eagle Oil Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1958

4 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