Angerstein v. Milwaukee Monument Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: E. T. Fairchild, Circuit Judge. This action was brought by the plaintiff for personal injuries which she claims to have received through carelessness on.the part of the defendant. The monument yard of the defendant company is north of and adjoining the yard of the house where the plaintiff and her husband live.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: E. T. Fairchild, Circuit Judge. This action was brought by the plaintiff for personal injuries which she claims to have received through carelessness on.the part of the defendant. The monument yard of the defendant company is north of and adjoining the yard of the house where the plaintiff and her husband live. On August 22, 1916, plaintiff, while in the act of removing the wash from a line in her yard, was struck in the eye by a rock chip set in motion by operations carried on by workmen employed at defendant’s machines. She…
1Opinion of the CourtSiebecker, J.
The defendant assigned error upon the grounds (1) that the evidence of the physicians who treated plaintiff was improperly received; (2) that the court improperly held that the complaint alleged a cause of action for ordinary negligence; (3) that the evidence fails to sustain the finding of the jury that defendant was guilty of actionable negligence; and (4) that the damages are excessive.
The evidence of plaintiff’s physician was properly received. The privilege granted by sec. 4075, Stats., is a privilege of the patient, and plaintiff in the instant case had the right to waive it. Markham v.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Astin v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Haverlund v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Markham v. HipkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1919