Legal Opinion

Bohnsack v. Huson-Ziegler Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1933PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

A truck owned by respondent Huson-Ziegler Company was being driven by Ervin Le Mahieu at the time' the appellant sustained his injuries. The circum*66stances under which the truck was in Le Mahieu’s custody determine whether or not the appellant can hold respondent responsible for the damages appellant sustained.

Respondent Huson-Ziegler Company, Inc., conducts a grocery store in Plymouth, Wisconsin, and Le Mahieu acted as its delivery boy. The appellant, an employee of the city of Plymouth, in the course of his employment was at the time of his injury being taken to a place where he was to work.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Claim of Dependents of Marks v. GrayNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Barragar v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Drewek v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Geldnich v. BurgWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Eckel v. RichterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Rusch v. MielkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Fitzgerald v. Milwaukee Automobile InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Vigio v. Cartagena RodríguezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1950
  5. Sample v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1959

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