142 Wis. 219 | Wis. | 1910
Tbe jury found that tbe splitter maebine, as equipped and operated, was not a reasonably safe one for tbe purpose for wbicb it was used; that the speed of the saw,
It is contended that the evidence tends to show that the defendant was negligent in not running the saw at a sufficiently
“This burden is not met by proof which is as consistent with a theory that . . . [the injury] was due to a cause not actionable as with a theory that it was due to an actionable •cause, and in such a state of the proof the case fails to come
Upon the record, we are constrained to hold that there was no evidence upon any of the alleged grounds of negligence to earry the case to the jury, and that the motion for a verdict in defendant’s favor should have been granted.
By the Court. — The judgment appealed from is reversed,, and the cause remanded with directions to award judgment dismissing the action.