(c) Conditions Unassociated with the Structure

Examples:

The following are examples of conditions unassociated with structure to which safe-place law applies: ice forming on a part of a placeof employment, [42] including a private sidewalk servicing the premises, [43] floor slippery by reason of snow or rain being blown in; [44] salad dressing spilled on stairway of store; [45] defective plank provided for travel over road under constructions; [46] an improvised diving board at YMCA pool; [47] a pail of cleaning water left in corridor during mopping operation; [48] a high tension wire strung at unsafe level; [49] a defective runway between lumber pile and work area; [50] an insufficiently protected open stairwell in building under construction; [51] an inadequately shored trench [52] or pile of stones [53] or pile of lumber; [54] improvised ramp incapable of supporting machinery; [55] improperly grounded housing for electrical current. [56]

Unsafe machinery, appliances or other instruments for work provided or permitted by the employer in connection with employment also fall into the category of unsafe conditions unassociated with the structure; as a defective ladder, [57] a filling station air compressor which had no pressure regulator, [58] rope of insufficient strength, [59] a defective derrick or crane, [60] an unsafe washing machine; [61] but an employer is not liable for injuries caused by a simple tool becoming out of repair [62] or by makeshift tools improvised by the employee. [63]

As a part of the duty to provide safe employment, the statute requires an employer to "furnish and use safety devices and safeguards," [64] and when failure to do so results in the machine being unsafe, it is a safe-place condition unassociated with the structure; as where flywheel was exposed, [65] a pulley belt was unguarded, [66] a power saw was unguarded, [67] an emery wheel was unguarded, [68] and a machine was improperly blocked, [69] but the employer is relieved where no guard is possible [70] and where the guard is removed for necessary repairs to the machine. [71]

The employer's duty to furnish safe employment also requires him to "adopt and use methods and processes" [72] which are safe, and failure to do so is a condition unassociated with the structure; as where logs were unloaded from flat car by weakening stakes which held logs in place, [73] where welding was done in a factory paint shop, [74] where a switchman was required to be near passing trains, [75] where machines were improperly arranged, [76] where a method permitted escape of deleterious gas, [77] where egress from box car was by jumping to ground, [78] where lumber was being thrown from pile, [79] and where electrical lines were improperly de-energized before working thereon. [80]

Any employer violation of ILHR Department orders on safety in construction would be a condition unassociated with the structure to which safe-place law would apply. However, it has been judicially assumed that a scaffold which did not comply with ILHR orders was a temporary condition associated with the structure. [81]

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

41. Sec. 101.11, Stats.

42. Murphy v. Interlake Pulp & Paper Co., 156 Wis. 9 (1914); also 162 Wis. 139 (1916); Paepcke v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 263 Wis. 290 (1953); Cross v. Leuenberger, 267 Wis. 232 (1954); Schwenn v. Loraine Hotel Co., 14 Wis. 2d 601 (1961). But see Kendzewski v. Wausau S. F. Co., 156 Wis. 452 (1914). For other cases see Holcomb v. Szymszyk, 186 Wis. 99 (1925); Rosenthal v. First Bohemian B. & L. Asso., 192 Wis. 326 (1927); Kezar v. Northern States Power Co., 246 Wis. 19 (1944); Bauhs v. St. James Congregation, 255 Wis. 108 (1949); Meyers v. St. Bernard's Congregation, 268 Wis. 285 (1954); Zernia v. Capitol Court Corp., 21 Wis. 2d 164 (1963); Petoskey v. Schmidt, 21 Wis. 2d 323 (1963); Corpron v. Safer Foods, Inc., 22 Wis. 2d 478 (1964); Cheetham v. Piggly Wiggly Madison Co., 24 Wis. 2d 286 (1964); Wittka v. Hartnell, 46 Wis. 2d 374 (1970).

43. Werner v. Gimbel Brothers, 8 Wis. 2d 491 (1959); Filipiak v. Plombon, 15 Wis. 2d 484 (1962).

44. Sturm v. Simpson's Garment Co., 271 Wis. 587 (1956); Longberg v. H. L. Green Co., 15- Wis. 2d 505 (1962). Tile construction of floor is pointed out in these cases. See also footnote 39, supra.

45. Lundgren v. Gimbel Bros., 191 Wis. 521 (1927) (erroneously referred to as "banana peel" being on stairway in Kaczmarski v. F. Rosenberg Elevator Co., 216 Wis. 553, 559 (1934) and Voll v. Ind. Comm., 239 Wis. 71, 80 (1941)); Shoemaker v. Marc's Big Boy, 51 Wis. 2d 611 (1971); Buerosse v. Dutchland Dairy Restaurants, 72 Wis. 2d 239 (1976).

46. Dierkes v. White Paving Co., 229 Wis. 660 (1939).

47. Waldman v. Young Men's Christian Asso., 227 Wis. 43 (1938).

48. Juul v. School District, 168 Wis. 111 (1918); Carlson v. Drews of Hales Corners, Inc., 48 Wis. 2d 408 (1970) (mop left in corridor).

49. Sandeen v. Willow River Power Co., 214 Wis. 166 (1934); Neitzke v. Kraft-Phenix Dairies, Inc., 214 Wis. 441 (1934); Criswell v. Seaman Body Corp., 233 Wis. 606 (1940). But see L.G. Arnold, Inc. v. Ind. Comm., 267 Wis. 521 (1954).

50. Rosholt v. Worden-Allen Co., 155 Wis. 168 (1913).

51. Singleton v. Kubiak & Schmitt, Inc., 9 Wis. 2d 472 (1960); Also open elevator pit being remodeled, Presser v. Siesel Construction Co., 19 Wis. 2d 54 (1963).

52. United States F. & G. Co. v. Christiansen, 193 Wis. 1 (1927); Potter v. Kenosha, 268 Wis. 361 (1955); Weber v. Hurley, 13 Wis. 2d 560 (1961). See also Wenzel & Henoch Const. Co. v. Ind. Comm., 202 Wis. 595 (1930); Luterbach v. Mochon etc., Inc., 84 Wis. 2d 1 (1978).

53. Mullen v. Larson-Morgan Co., 212 Wis. 52 (1933).

54. Peschel v. Klug, 170 Wis. 519 (1920). Other unsafe stacking cases: Uhrman v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc., 2 Wis. 2d 71 (1957); Stefanovich v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 86 Wis. 2d 161 (1978).

55. Burmeister v. Damrow, 273 Wis. 568 (1956).

56. La Duke v. Northern States Power Co., 256 Wis. 286 (1950).

57. uza v. C. Hennecke Co., 158 Wis. 482 (1914); see also Washburn v. Skogg, 204 Wis. 29 (1931). Other ladder cases: Sposito v. Zeitz, 23 Wis. 2d 159 (1964); Lovesee v. Allied Development Corp., 45 Wis. 2d 340 (1970).

58. Tryba v. Petcoff, 10 Wis. 2d 308 (1960).

59. Builder's Mutual Cas. Co. v. Ind. Comm., 210 Wis. 311 (1933); Combustion Engineering Co. v. Ind. Comm., 254 Wis. 167 (1948). For cable being of sufficient safety see Olson v. Whitney Bros. Co., 160 Wis. 606 (1915).

60. Kosidowski v. Milwaukee, 152 Wis. 223 (1912); Czapinski v. Thomas Furnace Co., 158 Wis. 635 (1914); Sheban v. A. M. Castle & Co., 185 Wis. 282 (1924); Kuske v. Miller Bros. Co., 227 Wis. 300 (1938). For other cases involving cranes see La Coco v. Massey Steampship Co., 174 Wis. 545 (1921); Deaton v. Unit Crane & Shovel Corp., 265 Wis. 349 (1953); L. G. Arnold, Inc. v. Ind. Comm., 267 Wis. 521 (1954).

61. Hahn v. Rothstein, 174 Wis. 381 (1921); see Gokey v. Elec. Household Utilities Corp., 241 Wis. 385 (1942).

62. Kolasinski v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 164 Wis. 50 (1916) (hammer).

63. Cream City F. Co. v. Ind. Comm., 188 Wis. 648, 652 (1926): "To require the employer to negative the use of every other device is to demand an anticipation as fertile and prolific as human ingenuity, and lays upon the employer a well-nigh impossible burden."

64. Sec. 101.11, Stats.

65. Beck v. Siemers, 174 Wis. 437 (1921).

66. Mayhew v. Wisconsin Zinc Co., 158 Wis. 112 (1914). Also involving pulley belt is Northwestern C. & S. Co. v. Ind. Comm., 194 Wis. 337 (1927).

67. Sullivan v. School District, 179 Wis. 502 (1923); but see Krueck v. Phoenix Chair Co., 157 Wis. 266 (1914); Niedfelt v. Joint School District, 23 Wis. 2d 641, 647 (1964).

68. Sobek v. George H. Smith S. C. Co., 158 Wis. 517 (1914).

69. Fries v. Lallier, 219 Wis. 388 (1935).

70. Krueck v. Phoenix Chair Co., 157 Wis. 266, 271 (1914): "If it be said that the employer must, in order to comply with this statute, wholly discard any appliance of the class mentioned which cannot be securely guarded or fenced, or that he must forego their use altogether, that is, we think, deriving from the statute a consequence not contemplated." See also Petition of State ex rel. Attorney General, 220 Wis. 25, 41 (1936): "... The Industrial Commission ... [does not] prescribe what particular machine should be used by a manufacturer in his plant. A manufacturer may use such machine as he chooses, provided it is equipped with such guards and devices as are necessary to make it as safe as the nature of the employment will reasonably permit. The commission does not undertake to specify what particular kind of machine shall be used ..."

71. Northwestern C. & S. Co. v. Ind. Comm., 194 Wis. 337 (1927); Skybrock v. Concrete Construction Co., 42 Wis. 2d 480 (1969) where road under construction: [489] "Defendant had no duty to put a red flag on every potential hazard that was present or to fence off the entire area."

72. See. 101.11, Stats. Gross v. Denow, 61 Wis. 2d 40 (1973) where employer's failure to prohibit pedestrian traffic or to erect fences along road through race track premises was violation.

73. Sparrow v. Menasha Paper Co., 154 Wis. 459 (1913). For other cases of unloading operations see Hollenbeck v. Chippewa Sugar Co., 156 Wis. 317 (1914); Sadowski v. Thomas Furnace Co., 157 Wis. 443 (1914); Kelly v. Kneeland-McLurg Lumber Co., 161 Wis. 158 (1915); Stellmacher v. Wisco Hardware Co., 259 Wis. 310 (1951); Hintz v. Darling Freight, Inc., 17 Wis. 2d 376 (1962); Presti v. O'Donahue, 25 Wis. 2d 594 (1964).

74. Johannsen v. P. P. Woboril, Inc., 260 Wis. 341 (1952).

75. Emberg v. Great Northern R. Co., 156 Wis. 396 (1914).

76. Northwestern C. & S. Co. v. Ind. Comm., 194 Wis. 337, 340 (1927).

77. Northwestern C. & S. Co. v. Ind. Comm., 194 Wis. 337, 340 (1927). For asphyxiation cases see Maryland Casualty Co. v. Thomas F. Co., 185 Wis. 98 (1924); Harder v. Maloney, 250 Wis. 233 (1947).

78. Van de Zande v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co., 168 Wis. 628 (1919).

79. Szeliwicki v. Connor L. & L. Co., 163 Wis. 20 (1916). Other cases involving injury by fellow employee are: Salus v. Great Northern R. Co., 157 Wis. 546 (1914); Van Dinter v. Worden-Allen Co., 158 Wis. 579 (1914); Deaton v. Unit Crane & Shovel Corp., 265 Wis. 349 (1953); L. G. Arnold, Inc. v. Ind. Comm., 267 Wis. 521 (1954); and by fellow frequenter: Srnka v. Joint District No. 3, 174 Wis. 38 (1921); Pfeifer v. Standard Gateway Theater, Inc., 259 Wis. 333 (1951); and by fellow student; Korenak v. Curative Workshop Adult Rehabil., 71 Wis. 2d 77 (1976).

80. Eau Claire Electric Co-op v. Ind. Comm., 10 Wis. 2d 209 (1960).

81. Lee v. Junkans, 18 Wis. 2d 56, 61 (1962).