Pawalowski v. Hartford Plow Co.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Pawalowski v. Hartford Plow Co.

149 N.W. 221, 158 Wis. 452, 1914 Wisc. LEXIS 324

DecidedOctober 27, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 149 N.W. 221 (Pawalowski v. Hartford Plow 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

Pawalowski v. Hartford Plow Co., 149 N.W. 221, 158 Wis. 452, 1914 Wisc. LEXIS 324 (Wis. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Maeshall, J.

The judgment must be affirmed. Tbe statement shows, without discussion, that whatever risks there were in plaintiff’s working place, be was familiar with and voluntarily subjected himself to.

Tbe accident happened prior to tbe late legislation increasing the duty of an employer as to safety of working place and conditions and making other changes in tbe law of negligence. Whether if such an accident should occur in tbe present state of tbe written law, tbe same result would be necessarily proper, we need not say. Quite clearly tbe trial court was justified in directing the verdict upon tbe ground that the mere circumstance of the molder’s implement being in plaintiff’s way was not actionable negligence, that plaintiff [454]*454assumed the risk as to uncertainty of the lights being constantly in service, and that his injury was only a matter of mere accident.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Maeshall, J.

The judgment must be affirmed. Tbe statement shows, without discussion, that whatever risks there were in plaintiff’s working place, be was familiar with and voluntarily subjected himself to.

Tbe accident happened prior to tbe late legislation increasing the duty of an employer as to safety of working place and conditions and making other changes in tbe law of negligence. Whether if such an accident should occur in tbe present state of tbe written law, tbe same result would be necessarily proper, we need not say. Quite clearly tbe trial court was justified in directing the verdict upon tbe ground that the mere circumstance of the molder’s implement being in plaintiff’s way was not actionable negligence, that plaintiff [454]*454assumed the risk as to uncertainty of the lights being constantly in service, and that his injury was only a matter of mere accident.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 N.W. 221, 158 Wis. 452, 1914 Wisc. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pawalowski-v-hartford-plow-co-wis-1914.