Gordon v. Wisconsin National Bank

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Gordon v. Wisconsin National Bank

176 N.W. 65, 170 Wis. 582, 1920 Wisc. LEXIS 39

DecidedFebruary 10, 1920

StatusPublished

This text of 176 N.W. 65 (Gordon v. Wisconsin National Bank) 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

Gordon v. Wisconsin National Bank, 176 N.W. 65, 170 Wis. 582, 1920 Wisc. LEXIS 39 (Wis. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Rosenberry, J.

The sole contention made on the appeal is that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. This clear-cut issue has been fully and [583]*583ably argued and we have given the matter the attention that the importance of the case demands. The contention of the defendant is briefly that, in passing by the man who held the rope, the deceased was warned of the fact that he was in the zone of danger, and that his failure to accept the warning and his entrance into the zone of danger constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law. While the argument is persuasive there is no circumstance or combination of circumstances which is conclusive upon this question. The evidence no doubt would sustain a finding of the jury either way. Reasonable men might well come to different conclusions upon the facts and circumstances appearing in the evidence; it is therefore a jury question, and the trial court rightly so held.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Rosenberry, J.

The sole contention made on the appeal is that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. This clear-cut issue has been fully and [583]*583ably argued and we have given the matter the attention that the importance of the case demands. The contention of the defendant is briefly that, in passing by the man who held the rope, the deceased was warned of the fact that he was in the zone of danger, and that his failure to accept the warning and his entrance into the zone of danger constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law. While the argument is persuasive there is no circumstance or combination of circumstances which is conclusive upon this question. The evidence no doubt would sustain a finding of the jury either way. Reasonable men might well come to different conclusions upon the facts and circumstances appearing in the evidence; it is therefore a jury question, and the trial court rightly so held.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 N.W. 65, 170 Wis. 582, 1920 Wisc. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-wisconsin-national-bank-wis-1920.