Case ID: wis_170/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rosenberry, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gordon, Administratrix, Respondent, vs. Wisconsin National Bank, Appellant.
    
      January 13
    
    February 10, 1920.
    
    
      Negligence: Removing' ice from building: Pedestrian killed by falling ice: Contributory negligence: Disregarding rope barrier.
    
    Where a rope was stretched from a building, from the roof of which ice was being removed, to a point near the street-car tracks, it was not negligence as a matter of law for one alighting from a car to pass alongside the car and by a man holding the rope, though he was killed by falling ice.
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: E. T. Fairchild, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Personal injury. On the morning of the 11th of February, 1918, the deceased, husband of plaintiff, was on a street car traveling south on East Water street in the city of Milwaukee. The car stopped on East Water street, north of the intersection of Wisconsin street. The deceased alighted and passed south alongside the car and by a man holding the end of a rope reaching from near the car to the Pabst building, and while he was in the street, next to the car, was hit on the head by a piece of falling ice and instantly killed. The ice was loosened by employees of defendant in the course of removing it from the roof of the building.
    ' The plaintiff brought this action, and from the judgment awarding her $10,000 damages and costs defendant appeals.
    For the appellant there was a brief by Burr J. Scott, attorney, and Lawrence A. Olwell, of counsel, both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by Mr. Scott.
    
    For the respondent there was a brief by Carroll & Carroll of Milwaukee, and oral argument by George J. Carroll.
    
   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 ably 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.