Blodgett v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Blodgett v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.

124 N.W. 246, 141 Wis. 329, 1910 Wisc. LEXIS 11

DecidedJanuary 11, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 124 N.W. 246 (Blodgett v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blodgett v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co., 124 N.W. 246, 141 Wis. 329, 1910 Wisc. LEXIS 11 (Wis. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Marshall, J.

The only question worthy of mention, for-decision on appeal, is, Did the circuit judge rightly rule that the evidence established, as matter of law, fatal contributory' [332]*332negligence? Tbe foregoing statement leaves very little, if anything, to be said for an opinion in respect thereto. The ■evidence disclosed about as clear a case of contributory negligence as could well be imagined. To submit such a case to a jury, suggesting thereby that there is room within the range of ■common sense for a decision either way, thus inviting what might afterwards appear to be a perverse verdict, would be un-judicial. So the trial court properly took the case from the jury upon the ground of plaintiff’s clearly established inexcusable fault.

By the Qowrt. — Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Marshall, J.

The only question worthy of mention, for-decision on appeal, is, Did the circuit judge rightly rule that the evidence established, as matter of law, fatal contributory' [332]*332negligence? Tbe foregoing statement leaves very little, if anything, to be said for an opinion in respect thereto. The ■evidence disclosed about as clear a case of contributory negligence as could well be imagined. To submit such a case to a jury, suggesting thereby that there is room within the range of ■common sense for a decision either way, thus inviting what might afterwards appear to be a perverse verdict, would be un-judicial. So the trial court properly took the case from the jury upon the ground of plaintiff’s clearly established inexcusable fault.

By the Qowrt. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 N.W. 246, 141 Wis. 329, 1910 Wisc. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blodgett-v-milwaukee-electric-railway-light-co-wis-1910.