Barstow v. City of Berlin
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Green Lake County. Action for damages alleged to Rave been sustained by tbe plaintiff by falling through an open hatchway in a sidewalk of the defendant city.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Green Lake County. Action for damages alleged to Rave been sustained by tbe plaintiff by falling through an open hatchway in a sidewalk of the defendant city. The complaint set forth the existence of the hatchway in a public sidewalk in the city; that it extended the full width of the sidewalk, except about twenty-one inches next the wall, being about seven feet in length by three and one-half feet in width; that it had existed for three years previous, during which time it was frequently opened by throwing the door over flat on the sidewalk, leaving an open…
1Opinion of the Court
Dixon, O. J.
It is understood that the court. below non-suited the plaintiff on the ground that the existence of the hatchway or doorway in the sidewalk, and which, to the knowledge of the officers of the city, it was and for a long time had been the custom to open and use in the manner set forth in the complaint and as described by the witnesses, was not a defect or insufficiency in the highway for which, or for the damages resulting from which, the city could be held responsible. It would be much more difficult for the members of this court, if such were their duty or obligation, to declare…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Weisenberg v. City of AppletonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
- Achtenhagen v. City of WatertownWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
3Cited by12 opinions
- Crites v. City of New RichmondWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Hoth v. PetersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- McLimans v. City of LancasterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- City of Valparaiso v. SchwerdtIndiana Court of Appeals · 1907
- Mischke v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1901
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.