Wisconsin Safe-Place Law Revised



Chapter Six: Actions
    (h) Jury
The court has said, in regard to safe-place law, that: "It would be very difficult to say, as a matter of law, when the physical conditions and acts requisite to fully satisfy the statutory requirements appear conclusively by evidence. The legislature evidently endeavored to remove the question as exclusively as practical into the field of jury interference. It left the field for the court far too narrow ..." [72] Accordingly there is ordinarily left to the jury the question of whether a place or thing is as safe as the nature thereof reasonably permits, [73] and subordinate questions relating to causation, [74] notice, [75] contributory negligence, [76] and status of the parties under safe-place law. [77] Also question as to whether defendant exercised requisite degree of control over premises is for jury. [77a]

However, "When the [industrial] commission does make a lawful order and it is complied with, the safety of the place involved is conclusively established at least in so far as the subject matter of the order is concerned. Thus when an order of the commission is claimed to be applicable, the sole question is whether the structure conforms to the order. If it does, the jury may not substitute its conclusions as to its safety for those of the body vested by statute with the power to determine the matter. [78]

72. Sadowski v. Thomas Furnace Co., 157 Wis. 443, 450 (1914).

73. Mayhew v. Wisconsin Zinc Co., 158 Wis. 112 (1914) (sufficiency of safeguard on machine); Olson v. Whitney Bros. Co., 160 Wis. 606 (1915); Sullivan v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 163 Wis. 583, 588 (1916): "Under the comprehensive requirement of Sec. 2394-48, Stats. 1915, as regards the duty of employers to protect their employees from danger of personal injury, the question of whether respondent was actionably negligent was for the jury."; Van de Zande v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co., 168 Wis. 628 (1919); Dugenske v. Wyse, 194 Wis. 159 (1927); Pettric v. Gridley Dairy Co., 202 Wis. 289 (1930); Heiden v . Milwaukee, 226 Wis. 92, 102 (1937): "Generally speaking, whether the safe-place statute is complied with or violated is a question for the jury."; Tiemann v. May, 235 Wis. 100 (1940) (machine); Helms v. Fox Badger Theatres Corp., 253 Wis. 113 (1948); Zimmers v. St. Sebastian's Cong., 258 Wis. 496, 501 (1951): "Failure to properly light a building or a part thereof subject to the safe-place statute is a violation and presents a jury question."; Umnus v. Wis. Public Service Corp., 260 Wis. 433, 437 (1952); Perry v. Labor Temple Asso., 264 Wis. 36, 39 (1953) (lights); Paepcke v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 263 Wis. 290, 296 (1953) (lights); Hipke v. Ind. Comm., 261 Wis. 226, 231 (1952); Bobrowski v. Henne, 270 Wis. 173 (1955); Uhrman v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc., 2 Wis. 2d 71 (1957); Zehren v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 11 Wis. 2d 539, 544 (1960); Burmek v. Miller Brewing Co., 12 Wis. 2d 405, 411 (1960) (lights); Raim v. Ventura, 16 Wis. 2d 67, 71 (1962) (whether use anticipated); Zernia v. Capitol Court Corp., 21 Wis. 2d 164, 170e (1963); Cheetham v. Piggly Wiggly Madison Co., 24 Wis. 2d 286 (1964); Anderson v. Joint School Dist., 24 Wis. 2d 580, 585 (1964); DeMarco v. Braund, 30 Wis. 2d 675, 677 (1966); Gould v. Allstar Ins. Co., 59 Wis. 2d 355, 361 (1973); Dykstra v. Arthur G. McKee & Co., 92 Wis. 2d 17, 26 (Ct. App. 1979); McGuire v. Stein's Gift & Garden Center, 178 Wis. 2d 379, 504 N.W. 2d 385, 393 (Ct. App. 1993); Henderson v. Milwaukee County, 198 Wis. 2d 748, 755, 543 N.W. 2d 544, 548 (Ct. App. 1995).

74. Allison v. Wm. Doerflinger Co., 208 Wis. 206, 209 (1932); Zimmers v. St. Sebastian's Cong., 258 Wis. 496, 503 (1951); but see Sachse v. Mayer, 18 Wis. 2d 457, 463 (1963); Mustas v. Inland Construction, Inc., 19 Wis. 2d 194 (1963).

75. Werner v. Gimbel Brothers, 8 Wis. 2d 491, 494 (1959); Krause v. Veterans of Foreign Wars Post No. 6498, 9 Wis. 2d 547, 554 (1960); Rudzinski v. Warner Theatres, 16 Wis. 2d 241 (1962).

76. See footnote 51, supra.

77. Lang v. Findorff, 185 Wis. 545 (1925); Singleton v. Kubiak & Schmitt, Inc., 9 Wis. 2d 472, 477 (1960); Wendt v. Manegold Stone Co., 240 Wis. 638, 641 (1942); Novak v. Delavan, 31 Wis. 2d 200, 209 (1966) where question of control over premises was one of law, no facts being in dispute.

77a. Callan v. Peters Construction Co., 94 Wis.2d 225, 243 (Ct.App., 1979).

78. Bent v. Jonet, 213 Wis. 635, 645 (1934). See also Builder's Mutual Cas. Co. v. Ind. Comm., 210 Wis. 311, 313 (1933); Skrzypczak v. Konieczka, 224 Wis. 455, 561 (1937); Waterman v. Heinemann Bros., 229 Wis. 209, 214 (1938).


Revised March 10, 2001

Top