Court Opinion

ID: 9683526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:30:39.559552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:48.500022
License: Public Domain

The following memorandum was filed September 11, 1964:
Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). Respondent district challenges our statement that the testimony of the man who installed the glass panels (a Mr. Curnow) would support a finding that the glass was ordinary window glass of the thickness of .118 inches. Upon review of the record, it appears that although Mr. Curnow had made statements before trial referring to the glass as double-strength window glass .118 inches thick, his testimony was that he did not know exactly how thick it was but that he was fairly sure it was not one-quarter inch thick. We correct our statement accordingly.
*586bThe lack of evidence of the exact thickness, however, is not fatal to the plaintiff’s case, in view of the inference of insufficiency of the glass which could be drawn from the fact that it broke when subjected to a use which could be deemed a normal use, without extraordinary force.1
Motion for rehearing denied, without costs.

 Raim v. Ventura (1962), 16 Wis. (2d) 67, 113 N. W. (2d) 827.