¶1(concurring). My own position and that of the court, as I understand it, may be briefly stated thus r Whether the ordinance, which on the occasion in question *94botli appellant and respondent supposed entitled tbe latter to ride upon the car, conferred suda right or not is immaterial to this case. If it did confer such right then respondent rode under a valid contract, otherwise he rode under an invalid contract. In either case he was neither a trespasser nor a mere licensee. There was a contract valid or invalid pursuant to which he took the passage. The action is not upon such contract, and its invalidity, if such invalidity exists, had no causal relation with the injury. In that situation the question of whether appellant owed the same duty to respondent in case the contract were valid as it did in case such contract were not valid is ruled in the affirmative by Knowlton v. Milwaukee City R. Co. 59 Wis. 278, 18 N. W. 17, and numerous cases in other jurisdictions cited in the court’s opinion.
135 Wis. 86
Gabbert v. Hackett
Decided March 10, 1908
Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1908-03-10
Appeax from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Winnebago county: Guo. W. BubNem., Circuit Judge. Tbis action was brought to recover for injuries- alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff while a passenger upon the street railway of the Winnebago Traction Company, a corporation, which afterwards passed into the hands of B. H. Ilackett, receiver, defendant and appellant.
Relies on Knowlton v. Milwaukee City Railway Co.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1908-03-10
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1932
1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →