(DOWNLOAD) "Bell v. Gray-Robinson Const. Co." by Supreme Court of Wisconsin # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Bell v. Gray-Robinson Const. Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of Wisconsin
- Release Date : January 02, 1954
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 53 KB
Description
Action was begun September 30, 1952 by John Bell seeking reimbursement for loss of valuable mink due to the manner in which
the defendant operated his machine while working alongside a highway some distance from the plaintiff's mink ranch. On June
5, 1951, defendant was engaged in digging a hole for the location of a meter pit in a trench on the southeasterly side of
Highway 151, just outside the city of Fond du Lac. Across the highway from the area where the trench was located was a mink
farm owned by plaintiff, who was at that time engaged in a program of changing from dark to mutation mink. The power shovel
used for the digging was gasoline driven, had crawler type wheels, and was not designed for use on the public highway. It
was moved from job to job on a trailer. After the machine had been in operation for some time, the plaintiff notified the
defendant that the noise from the operation was disturbing his mink. The operation of the machine was then somewhat reduced,
to a degree styled as 'half-throttle.' Shortly thereafter, however, the plaintiff returned and told the defendant's employees
that the noise was still disturbing the mink, and requested that the defendant attach a muffler to the machine to cut down
the noise. There is a dispute in the testimony as to when the defendant ceased operation, the defendant's employees testifying
that they stopped immediately and procured a farm tractor muffler and improvised it for use on the power shovel. The testimony
that was accepted by the jury was that they continued to operate for about an hour and a half, that they then ceased operations
for that day, and that they returned Thursday morning with a muffler, put in on, and began operations. After the muffler was
installed, there was no further trouble with the mink. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the loss of 87 mink kits destroyed and 15 adult mink either destroyed or made useless
as breeders by noise emanating from the defendant's power shovel between the time of plaintiff's giving the second notice
and the installation of the muffler which eliminated the difficulty. In his complaint, plaintiff included two causes of action
(1) nuisance, (2) negligence.
 "Bell v. Gray-Robinson Const. Co." by Supreme Court of Wisconsin # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}