Boyle's Wisconsin Safe-Place Law



Chapter Six: Actions
    (d) Evidence
      (2) Subsequent Precaution
Although evidence of repairs or alterations made after an accident is inadmissible as proof of fault in a common-law negligence action, such is not the case in a safe-place action. It is considered, in safe-place actions, that subsequent precautions tend to show that the place or thing at the time of the accident was not as safe as the nature of the same would reasonably permit, and evidence thereof is admissible; [12] but is not conclusive." Statute which renders evidence of subsequent measures inadmissible does not require such exclusion in a safe-place action. [13] Statute which renders evidence of subsequent measures inadmissible does not require such exclusion in a safe-place action. [14]

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

12. Sweitzer v. Fox, 226 Wis. 26, 36 (1937): "Even though some ice and slippery condition on the floor was but a natural incident in the conduct of the defendant's business, the evidence as to the manner and the extent to which the dangerous condition, which they permitted to exist at the time of plaintiff's injury, could have been and was remedied subsequently, warranted the jury's finding."; Heiden v. Milwaukee, 226 Wis. 92, 103 (1937): "Ordinarily, in personal injury actions repairs or alterations made after an accident has occurred cannot be proven for the purpose of tending to show that the place of the accident was defective or that the defendant was negligent ... However, in a very recent case evidence as to changes and alterations in a place of employment after the happening of an accident was considered as tending to support the finding of the jury that the place of employment was not as safe as its nature would reasonably permit." See also Zehren v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 11 Wis. 2d 539, 542 (1960).

13. Hipke v. Ind. Comm., 261 Wis. 226, 233 (1952): "After the accident the employer installed an iron stairway at each end of the corridor and claimant contends that because the new installations would reduce if not obviate the danger, it follows that his injuries were sustained by reason of the violation of the safe-place statute. Evidence of alterations made after the accident may be considered by the trier, but it is no more than evidence to be considered with other facts ... and is not controlling."; Raim v. Ventura, 16 Wis. 2d 67, 72 (1962): "Ventura changed the type of glass in the door subsequent to the injury, but such fact is not controlling as to the existence of a previous violation of a safe-place standard." Both the above cases cite Heiden v. Milwaukee, 226 Wis. 92 (1937) as sole authority.

14. Sec. 904.07, Stats.: "When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This section does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment or proving a violation of s. 101.11."


Revised July 3, 2000

Top