Paepcke v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.
Defendant contends, first, that it was not established that it had violated the safe-place statute with respect to lights. ‘There is a sharp conflict in the testimony bearing upon that issue.
Sylvia Paepcke, her sister, her brother-in-law, • and her mother each testified that when they entered the lot at about 9:00 p. m. it was in darkness. Police Officer Steuck who arrived at the scene between ten and twelve minutes after 9 p. m. testified that the lot was then in darkness. Police Officer Rutzen who arrived at about 9:08 or 9:09 observed that no lights were burning and that the lot was then…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Acme Markets., Inc. v. RemschelSupreme Court of Virginia · 1943
- Rosholt v. Worden-Allen Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Pettric v. Gridley Dairy Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
- Washburn v. SkoggWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Lowe v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Geraghty v. Burr Oak Lanes, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1955
- Isaacson v. Husson CollegeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1972
- Schwenn v. Loraine Hotel Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Cheetham v. Piggly Wiggly Madison Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Wittka v. HartnellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.