Gensch v. City of Milwaukee
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Standiford v. Salt Lake City Corp. (Utah 1980)
- Wohlleben v. City of Park Falls (Wis. 1964)
- Flesch v. City of Lancaster (Wis. 1953)
- Felton v. City of Great Falls (Mont. 1946)
- Felton v. City of Great Falls (Mont. 1946)
- Matthews v. City of Detroit (Mich. 1939)
- Lawver v. Joint District No. 1 (Wis. 1939)
- Cegelski v. City of Green Bay (Wis. 1939)
- Heiden v. City of Milwaukee (Wis. 1937)
- Virovatz v. City of Cudahy (Wis. 1933)
- Stuver v. City of Auburn (Wash. 1932)
- Lindemann v. City of Kenosha (Wis. 1932)
- De Baere v. Town of Oconto (Wis. 1932)
- Erickson v. Village of West Salem (Wis. 1931)
- McCoy v. Kenosha County (Wis. 1928)
- Hensley v. Incorporated Town of Gowrie (Iowa 1927)
- Mocha v. City of Cedar Rapids (Iowa 1927)
- Wiggins v. City of Fort Worth (Tex. App. 1927)
- Burton v. Salt Lake City (Utah 1926)
- Atkins v. City of Durham (N.C. 1936)
- Hale v. Commissioner (United States Board of Tax Appeals 1935)
- Toft v. City of Lincoln (Neb. 1933)
- Norberg v. Hagna (S.D. 1923)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We are compelled to come to the conclusion that there can be no recovery against the defendant in this action upon the principle so long established in this state that in the performance of a governmental function a city is not liable for the damages caused by the negligence of its servants engaged in that performance, as illustrated
The negligent act found by the jury to be the proximate cause of this unfortunate accident was one being performed by the employees of the defendant city as a proper part of their services in maintaining and operating the free public bathing beach as a portion of one of the city’s public parks. The mere circumstance that this particular box was placed in the rear of the bathing pavilion and in a portion of the park devoted to the general purposes of such park rather than in front of the bathing pavilion and between that and the beach, a portion more particularly set aside for the use of the bathers, cannot take this particular case without the well established rule. The negligence, if any, was that of the employees of the city in the doing of city work and upon property kept and maintained by the city for public park purposes.
It follows that the defendant’s motion for judgment in its favor should have been granted.
By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment dismissing the .complaint.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.