Legal Opinion

Britten v. City of Eau Claire

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1952PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.

The city contends that at the time in question it was engaged in carrying on' a governmental function and that therefore it is not liable. As appears from the verdict the case was tried upon the theory that the injury resulted from the maintenance of an attractive nuisance. The attractive-nuisance doctrine as it is applied in Wisconsin generally, without particular reference to municipalities, is that one who “leaves an instrumentality or premises where children have a right to be or where children by reason of their childish instincts are likely for some apparent reason to be attracted” must…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Angelier v. Red Star Yeast & Products Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Reichvalder v. Borough of TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Pohland v. City of SheboyganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Routt v. LookWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Vaudreuil Lumber Co. v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1930

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public EducationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  2. Holytz v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
  3. O'NEIL v. City of ParkersburgWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railroad Company, and Third-Party v. City of Fond Du Lac, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961
  5. Pocholec v. GIUSTINAOregon Supreme Court · 1960

22 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