Kingston v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. case brief summary
211 N.W. 913 (Wis. 1927)
CASE FACTS
After his property sustained fire damage, plaintiff property owner filed a suit against defendant railroad. Plaintiff's property had been damaged when two fires united. The lower court entered a judgment for plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order, holding that although only one of the fires was attributable to defendant, it was still liable to plaintiff for the damage caused by both fires. The court further held that the fact that the other fire was of unknown origin did not affect defendant's liability because the fire attributable to defendant was of a greater magnitude. Finally, the court held that the fire of unknown origin had not superseded the fire attributable to defendant.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed an order of the lower court, which entered a judgment for plaintiff property owner in a suit against defendant railroad to recover for fire damage to his property. A fire attributed to defendant was not superseded by another fire of unknown origin.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
211 N.W. 913 (Wis. 1927)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant railroad sought
review of an order of the Circuit Court for Shawano County
(Wisconsin), which entered a judgment for plaintiff property owner in
a suit to recover for fire damage to his property.CASE FACTS
After his property sustained fire damage, plaintiff property owner filed a suit against defendant railroad. Plaintiff's property had been damaged when two fires united. The lower court entered a judgment for plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order, holding that although only one of the fires was attributable to defendant, it was still liable to plaintiff for the damage caused by both fires. The court further held that the fact that the other fire was of unknown origin did not affect defendant's liability because the fire attributable to defendant was of a greater magnitude. Finally, the court held that the fire of unknown origin had not superseded the fire attributable to defendant.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed an order of the lower court, which entered a judgment for plaintiff property owner in a suit against defendant railroad to recover for fire damage to his property. A fire attributed to defendant was not superseded by another fire of unknown origin.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment