Van der Blomen v. City of Milwaukee

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Van der Blomen v. City of Milwaukee

164 N.W. 844, 166 Wis. 168, 1917 Wisc. LEXIS 193

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 23, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 164 N.W. 844 (Van der Blomen v. City of Milwaukee) 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

Van der Blomen v. City of Milwaukee, 164 N.W. 844, 166 Wis. 168, 1917 Wisc. LEXIS 193 (Wis. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

EoseNBehev, J.

Defendant claims that tbe judgment should be reversed for two reasons: (1) that the defect which existed in the sidewalk was not actionable, and"(2) that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

The sidewalk in question was built of concrete and was constructed in the ordinary way in squares. At the point where the corners of four blocks came together there was an inequality in the sidewalk, caused, as appears from the cast offered and received in evidence, by a slight depression in one block and an elevation in the adjacent block immediately to the north of it. From the bottom of the depression to the top of the elevation was about one and one-quarter inches. The elevation was from three quarters of an inch to an inch above the general level of the sidewalk. Did the court err in permitting the jury to say whether or not the walk was defective ?

This case is clearly ruled in favor of the appellant by Kleiner v. Madison, 104 Wis. 339, 80 N. W. 453. The decision in Kleiner v. Madison is not modified or overruled by Johnson v. Eau Claire, 149 Wis. 194, 135 N. W. 481. It is not necessary to repeat here what was said in Kleiner v. Madison. The doctrine announced in that case finds support in a large number of cases from other jurisdictions, cited in 20 L. R. A. n. s. 640, and 43 L. R. A. n. s. 1158.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint upon the merits.

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

EoseNBehev, J.

Defendant claims that tbe judgment should be reversed for two reasons: (1) that the defect which existed in the sidewalk was not actionable, and"(2) that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

The sidewalk in question was built of concrete and was constructed in the ordinary way in squares. At the point where the corners of four blocks came together there was an inequality in the sidewalk, caused, as appears from the cast offered and received in evidence, by a slight depression in one block and an elevation in the adjacent block immediately to the north of it. From the bottom of the depression to the top of the elevation was about one and one-quarter inches. The elevation was from three quarters of an inch to an inch above the general level of the sidewalk. Did the court err in permitting the jury to say whether or not the walk was defective ?

This case is clearly ruled in favor of the appellant by Kleiner v. Madison, 104 Wis. 339, 80 N. W. 453. The decision in Kleiner v. Madison is not modified or overruled by Johnson v. Eau Claire, 149 Wis. 194, 135 N. W. 481. It is not necessary to repeat here what was said in Kleiner v. Madison. The doctrine announced in that case finds support in a large number of cases from other jurisdictions, cited in 20 L. R. A. n. s. 640, and 43 L. R. A. n. s. 1158.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint upon the merits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 N.W. 844, 166 Wis. 168, 1917 Wisc. LEXIS 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-der-blomen-v-city-of-milwaukee-wis-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack