Legal Opinion

Mazurkiewicz v. Pawinski

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 4, 1966PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHanley, J.

Appellant contends the complaint does not allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action upon the attractive-nuisance theory which permits a child of tender years to recovery under certain circumstances whether or not she is a trespasser. The attractive-nuisance doctrine is grounded in negligence. It was applied in Angelier v. Red Star Yeast & Products Co. 2 decided in Wisconsin in 1934.

In Schilz v. Walter Kassuba, Inc. (1965), 27 Wis. (2d) 390, 393, 134 N. W. (2d) 453, the court reiterated the elements of an attractive nuisance cause of action as follows:

‘‘(1) . . . that the former…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Greene v. DiFazioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
  2. Angelier v. Red Star Yeast & Products Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Atlantic Peninsular Holding Co. v. OenbrinkSupreme Court of Florida · 1938
  4. Schilz v. Walter Kassuba, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Nechodomu v. LindstromWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Haddad v. First National Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1971
  2. Christians Ex Rel. Davis v. Homestake Enterprises, Ltd.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Kempen v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Christians Ex Rel. Davis v. Homestake Enterprises, Ltd.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Kempen v. GREEN BAY & MISSISIPPI CANAL CO.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974

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