Boyle's Wisconsin Safe-Place Law



Chapter One: Nature of Safe-Place Law
    (k) Farming Excluded
"Farming" is excluded from the purview of the safe-place law, at least insofar as liability for an unsafe "place of employment" is concerned. [85] Wis. Stat. Sec. 101.01(2)(a) qualifies the definition of "place of employment" by stating: "but shall not include any place where persons are employed in private domestic service which does not involve the use of mechanical power or farming". "Farming" is defined in such section as including "those activities specified in Wis. Stat. Sec. 102.04(3), ['activities commonly considered to be farming') and also includes the transportation of farm products, supplies or equipment directly to the farm by the operator of said farm or his employes for use thereon, if such activities are directly or indirectly for the purpose of producing commodities for market, or as an accessory to such production." [86] Thus the safe-place law was held not to apply where plaintiff farm employee, who was working in a corn-processing plant of a farm, sustained injury by striking his head as he passed through a passageway [87] where a farm laborer was directed by his employer to go onto a neighbor's farm and assist in the operation of a corn shredding and husking machine which caused injury; [88] and where a farm laborer was injured while oiling a defective corn-rehusking machine. [89] Earlier cases which imposed safe-place liability on farming operations no longer control because of statutory amendment. Originally the statute qualified the "place of employment" statute in these words: "but shall not include any place where persons are employed in private domestic service or agricultural pursuits which do not involve the use of mechanical power." [90] Under this form of the statute the court held farming subject to safe-place liability where the use of mechanical power was involved. [91] However, Laws 1941, c. 273 removed the "mechanical power" exception as to farming and accomplished exemption of farming which exists today. [92]

Another statutory enactment which probably changes the existing law relative to the scope of safe-place law over farming is Laws 1953, c. 212. Prior to this time it was held that mink farming was not "farming" so as to come within the exclusion of the statute. The court had reasoned that, "One engaged in the operation of a mink farm is not engaged in the customary type of farming as that term is ordinarily understood in this community". [93] However, Laws 1953, c. 212 provided that: "All persons engaged in the foregoing activities [among which is raising mink] are farmers and engaged in farming for all statutory purposes. [94]

As pointed out above, farming is excluded from the safe-place law only in respect to the "place of employment" concept. It is not deemed that the exclusion would apply to a farmer as an owner of a public building.

Conversion Table Wis. 2d or Wis. to N.W. 2d or N.W.

85. Vandre v. Trachte, 244 Wis. 233 (1943); Redman v. Hobart, 248 Wis. 508 (1946); Welch v. Corrigan, 255 Wis. 58 (1949); Haefner v. Batz Seed Farms, Inc., 255 Wis. 438 (1949).

86. "As to meaning of word "customarily" used in the farm exclusion clause see Vandre v. Trachte, 244 Wis. 233, 236 (1943).

87. Vandre v. Trachte, 244 Wis. 233 (1943).

88. Redman v. Hobart, 248 Wis. 508 (1946).

89. Haefner v. Batz Seed Farms, Inc., 255 Wis. 438 (1949).

90. Wis. Stats. Sec. 2394-41 (1911).

91. Dugenske v. Wyse, 194 Wis. 159, 162 (1927): "While those engaged in agricultural pursuits and in domestic labor are quite generally not affected by the statute, there is one pronounced exception under which this statute may become applicable, viz.: where industry is carried on upon a farm or in a home by means of mechanical power."; Tiemann v. May, 235 Wis. 100, 105 (1940): "By the terms of sec. 101.01(1), Stats., the safe-place statute does not impose any duties as to any place where persons are employed in agricultural pursuits which do not involve the use of mechanical power. It does, however, plainly apply to all such places where the activities there involve the use of mechanical power. The farmer who carries on his agricultural pursuits with the assistance of devices involving the use of mechanical power is plainly covered by the act."

92. The draft record for Laws 1941, c. 273 (Bill No. 66,A) contains the following statement: "To amend chapter 101 of the statutes relating to safe place of employment and particularly 101.01(2) so that domestic and agricultural employment is exempt from the provisions of the safe-place statute. See Supreme Court Decision which this request intends to circumvent (N.W. Reporter of July 10, 1940) Tiemann v. May. The exemption of farming was further clarified by Laws 1955, c. 425 which put the statute in its present form. This latter bill was submitted by the legal counsel for the Wisconsin Farm Bureau. In Vandre v. Trachte, 244 Wis. 233, 235 (1943), the court says about the further exemption of farming that, "Undoubtedly the necessity placed upon farmers of using many variety of machines operated by mechanical power in ordinary farming by usual farm labor was recognized."

93. Maus v. Bloss, 265 Wis. 627, 630 (1954). See also Bloss v. Rural Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 270 Wis. 127 (1955).

94. Inference in Maus v. Bloss, 265 Wis. 627, 631 (1954), is to the effect that mink farming is now excluded from safe-place purview by reason of Laws 1933, c. 212.


Revised October 20, 2001

Top