Tiemann v. May
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWickhem, J.
Defendants’ principal contention is that the evidence does not support the jury’s finding that defendants violated the safe-place statute. This calls for a review of the facts.
Defendants own a farm in Kenosha county. Plaintiff was an employee of defendants. In 1935, defendants purchased a 1935 model Case tractor and corn binder, equipped with a device known as a power take-off. When assembled and in working order the tractor not only pulled the corn binder but through the power take-off and attached shaft furnished the power to run the machinery of the corn binder.
As indicated in the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Rosholt v. Worden-Allen Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1913
- Bloor v. Town of DelafieldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
- Mullen v. Larson-Morgan Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Bunce v. Grand & Sixth Building, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Kreider v. Wisconsin River Paper & Pulp Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- prod.liab.rep.(cch)p. 13,796 Julie Klonowski, Now Arndt, and Threshermen's Mutual Insurance Company v. International Armament CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Wasley v. KosmatkaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
- Yaun v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1948
- Novak v. City of DelavanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Blanco v. Sun Ranches, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1951
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.