1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wis.
  4. 260 Wis.
  5. 260 Wis. 382 (1951)
 

BRITTEN v. EAU CLAIRE

260 Wis. 382 (1951)

BRITTEN, by Guardian, and another, Respondents, vs. CITY OF EAU CLAIRE and another, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

January 8, 1952.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

For the appellant city of Eau Claire there was a brief by Ramsdell, King & Carroll and James C. Herrick, all of Eau Claire, and David F. Nordstrom, city attorney, and oral argument by Mr. Bailey E. Ramsdell and Mr. Nordstrom.

For the appellant General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation there was a brief by Stafford & Stafford, attorneys, and Robert F. Pfiffner of counsel, all of Chippewa Falls, and oral argument by Harold E. Stafford.

For the respondents there was a brief by Frank E. Betz and Wilcox & Sullivan, all of Eau Claire, and oral argument by Mr. Betz and Mr. Francis J. Wilcox.

GEHL, J.

The city contends that at the time in question it was engaged in carrying on a governmental function and that therefore it is not liable. As appears from the verdict the case was tried upon the theory that the injury resulted from the maintenance of an attractive nuisance. The attractive-nuisance doctrine as it is applied in Wisconsin generally, without particular reference to municipalities, is that one who "leaves an instrumentality or premises where children...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases