Boyle's Wisconsin Safe-Place Law



Chapter Three: Persons Liable
    (g) Owner of Outdoor Recreational Premises
Persons who gratuitously permit their premises to be used by others for hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, hiking, snowmobiling, berry picking, water sports, sight-seeing, cutting or removing wood, climbing of observation towers or recreational purposes are exempted from the category of owner under safe-place law (and probably that of employer). [121] Section 29.68 Stats. was repealed by 1983 Act 418 and replaced, after extensive overhaul, by new section 895.52. The 1983 Act was "intended to overrule any previous Wisconsin supreme court decisions interpreting section 29.68 of the statutes if the decision is more restrictive than or inconsistent with the provisions [of new section 895.52]." [121a] Whether all prior "more restrictive" decisions have been overruled remains to be seen.[121b]

However, such exemption does not obtain where the landowner receives valuable consideration from the recreant. [122]


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

121. Sec. 29.68, Stats.; Douglas v. Dewey, 154. Wis. 2d 515, 453 N.W. 2d 500, 508 (Ct. App. 1990).

121a. 1983 Act 418, section 1 provides: "Legislative intent. The legislature intends by this act to limit the liability of property owners toward others who use their property for recreational activities under circumstances in which the owner does not derive more than a minimal pecuniary benefit. While it is not possible to specify in a statute every activity which might constitute a recreational activity, this act provides examples of the kinds of activities that are meant to be included, and the legislature intends that, where substantially similar circumstances or activities exist, this legislation should be liberally construed in favor of property owners to protect them from liability. The act is intended to overrule any previous Wisconsin supreme court decisions interpreting section 29.68 of the statutes if the decision is more restrictive than or inconsistent with the provisions of this act."

The following decisons are deemed to be more restrictive than or inconsistent with section 895.52: Copeland v. Larson, 46 Wis.2d 337 (1970); Goodson v. Racine, 61 Wis.2d 554 (1973); Cords v. Ehly, 62 Wis.2d 31 (1974); Cords v. Anderson, 82 Wis.2d 321 (1978); Quesenberry v. Milwaukee County, 106 Wis.2d 685 (1982); LePoidevin v. Wilson, 111 Wis.2d 116 (1983).

121b. Although Quesenberry v. Milwaukee County, 106 Wis.2d 685 (1982) is a "more restrictive" prior decision, argument can be made against overrule. Quesenberry, by strictly construing section 29.68, held that golfing was not a recreational activity covered by the statute. However, it is noted that the legislature intended section 895.52 to be liberally construed where "substantially similar circumstances or activities [to those enumerated in the statute] exist", but that the legislature failed to include "golfing" in the enumerated activities of section 895.52.

122. Copeland v. Larson, 46 Wis. 2d 337 (1970) -- applying broad construction to concept "valuable consideration".


Revised December 11, 2000

Top