Plaintiff was visiting a tenant at defendant's resort. Plaintiff was injured when she dove from defendant's dock into shallow water. Plaintiff appealed judgment on verdict for defendant. Defendant cross-appealed on the ground that the court should not have instructed on safe-place law because Wis. Stat. sec. 895.52(7) made the safe-place law inapplicable to private property used for recreational purposes. Held that the grant of immunity included immunity from safe-place law but if the landowner was not immune, safe-place law could apply.


Kaltenbrun v. Port Washington, 156 Wis. 2d 634, 457 N.W. 2d 527 (Ct. App. 1990)
Summary judgment for defendants. Affirmed.

Plaintiff was employed by a subcontractor and was injured while working on the construction of a water main and pump station. He sued the city and the architect. The city's contract with the general contractor left it with only legal ownership and a right of inspection. The architect was required to determine if construction complied with the contract but was not responsible for construction methods or safety precautions. Held prior to the start of construction, the premises involved were not a place of employment. Held further, during construction, the city lacked the control required to be liable as an owner of a place of employment under the safe-place law. Held further the architect's power to halt the work for failure to comply with the contract was insufficient control for the architect to be liable, under the safe-place law, as an owner as defined by Wis. Stat. sec. 101.01(2)(e).


Hannebaum v. DiRenzo and Bomier, 162 Wis. 2d 448, 469 N.W. 2d 900 (Ct. App. 1991)
Judgment on verdict for plaintiff. Reversed on other grounds.

Plaintiff was injured when she slipped on ice while descending the front steps while a frequenter of the building. She sued the owner and the two tenants. Defendants appealed the trial court's denial of a request that the special verdict include separate questions regarding the negligence of each, on the ground that testimony of witnesses could lead to different parties being found liable and the leases obligated the tenants to maintain the property. Held under the safe-place law, the defendants were each either an owner or employer and had the same duty to the plaintiff as a frequenter of a public building or place of employment.


Wisnicky v. Fox Hills Inn and Country Club, 163 Wis. 2d 1023, 473 N.W. 2d 523 (Ct. App. 1991)
Summary judgment for defendants. Affirmed.

Plaintiff was injured diving into the shallow end of a swimming pool at Fox Hills. Held that the rule that where a plaintiff who confronts an open an obvious danger is guilty of negligence greater than the defendants' ordinary negligence also applies where, as here, the defendants have the higher duty under the safe-place law.


Grotelueschen v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 163 Wis. 2d 666, 472 N.W. 2d 544 (Ct. App. 1991)
Summary judgment for plaintiff. Reversed.

Plaintiff was injured when his uncle ran over her with a lawn tractor while mowing the grounds of the storage shed in which were stored the mower and other items used in maintaining nearby rental property, which property was subject to the safe-place law. Held operation of the lawn tractor did not constitute a condition of the premises of the rental property and so safe-place law did not apply.


LeClair v. Natural Resources Board, 168 Wis. 2d 227, 483 N.W. 2d 278 (Ct. App. 1992)
Declaratory judgment for defendant. Affirmed.

Admininstrative rule limiting smelt trawling to nighttime was challenged on the ground that this increased the danger to persons employed as fisherman and thus violated the safe-place law. Held department not here an employer under safe-place law, and rule does not require anyone to engage in nighttime trawling or trawling in congested conditions.


Ollhoff v. Peck, 177 Wis. 2d 719, 503 N.W. 2d 323 (Ct. App. 1993)
Judgment on verdict for defendant. Affirmed.

Plaintiff was injured when he was bitten by a musky when he reached into the musky pond at defendant's nature park. The trial court excluded evidence that the defendant put up warning signs shortly afterward. Held that while subsequent remedial measures are admissible to prove a violation of the safe-place law, it was still within the trial court's discretion to exclude the evidence on the ground that the prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.


McGuire v. Stein's Gift & Garden Center, Inc.178 Wis. 2d 379, 504 N.W. 2d 385 (Ct. App. 1993)
Judgment on verdict for defendants. Affirmed.

Plaintiff was injured when a shopping cart in which her grandson had placed four forty pound bags of potting soil tipped over onto her. She alleged this was due to it being overloaded and to it being positioned on a crack in the parking lot asphalt. Held Stein's employee's testimony that it was not a crack but a seam which had been filled and smoothed over and that subsequent repaving with concrete was not a remedial measure but an improvement supported jury finding of no violation of safe-place law.


Kellar v. Lloyd, 180 Wis. 2d 162, 509 N.W. 2d 87 (Ct. App. 1998)
Judgment dismissing plaintiff's case. Affirmed.

Race track volunteer was injured by race car which went out of control. Held safe-place law did not apply to plaintiff as an employee because he did not provide services "in consideration of direct or indirect gain or profit." Wis. Stat. sec. 101.02(2)(a).


Kaufman v. State Street Limited Partnership, 187 Wis. 2d 54, 522 N.W. 2d 249 (Ct. App. 1994)
Summary judgment for defendants. Affirmed.

Customer slipped on banana in shopping center parking lot. Held the lot was not in the exclusive control of any tenant defendant and condition could not be attributed to any tenant's conduct or methods, so constructive notice would require evidence of lenghth of time condition existed.


Eder v. Lake Geneva Raceway, Inc., 187 Wis. 2d 595, 523 N.W. 2d 429 (Ct. App. 1994)
Summary judgment for defendant. Reversed.

Plaintiff spectator injured by motor bike that left racetrack. Held plaintiff's allegation that defendant failed to "furnish a place of employment and a public building which were safe for frequenters" stated a claim for relief under the safe-place law.


Geiger v. Milwaukee Guardian Insurance Company, Inc., 188 Wis. 2d 333, 524 N.W. 2d 909 (Ct. App. 1994)
Judgment dismissing plaintiffs' case. Affirmed.

Plumber sued for injuries while working at a lawyer's residence, alleging it was a place of employment under Wis. Stat. sec. 101.11(2)(f). Held that defendant occasionally having clients at his home, primarily for their convenience rather than any necessity of the defendant's, was not sufficient to make home a place of employment.


Yauger v. Skiing Enterprises, Inc., 196 Wis. 2d 485, 538 N.W. 2d 834 (Ct. App. 1995), rev'd 206 Wis. 2d 75, 557 N.W. 2d 60 (S. Ct. 1996)
Judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' case. Affirmed by Court of Appeals. Reversed by Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs' daughter was killed while skiing when she struck the concrete base of a ski lift tower. The family skied using a family discount pass with an exculpatory provision, purchased by plaintiff father. Court of Appeals held the exculpatory clause valid, including as to safe-place liability, against all plaintiffs because all benefited from the discount. The Supreme Court held the exculpatory clause reference to "inherent risks in skiing" did not explicitly refer to the specific negligence alleged.


Henderson v. Milwaukee County, 198 Wis. 2d 748, 543 N.W. 2d 544 (Ct. App. 1995)
Summary judgment for defendant. Affirmed.

Inmate at the Milwaukee County House of Correction sued for injury sustained in fall on stairway connection two walkways on the grounds. The defendant argued that the prison was not a "place of employment" in the traditional sense. Held the safe-place law applied to the facility and to the stairway.


Anderson v. Milwaukee, 199 Wis. 2d 479, 544 N.W. 2d 630 (Ct. App. 1996), rev'd 208 Wis. 2d 18, 559 N.W. 2d 563 (S. Ct. 1997)
Judgment on verdict for plaintiff. Affirmed by Court of Appeals. Reversed by Supreme Court on other grounds.

Plaintiff was injured in fall at farmers market owned by the city, due to a raised line of bricks in a walkway. Defendant argued its architect designed the walkway and this was inherently an exercise of discretion providing immunity under Wis. Stat. sec. 893.80(4). The Court of Appeals held this an allegation of unsafe construction and defendant's duty under the safe-place law was not discretionary.


Naaj v. Aetna Insurance Company, 218 Wis. 2d 121, 579 N.W. 2d 815 (Ct. App. 1998)
Summary judgment for defendant. Affirmed.

Plaintiff employee of tenant store was injured in a robbery attempt. Plaintiff alleged the building owner had disconnected the alarm system because of some ongoing remodeling work. Held that the alarm system related to "safe employment," a duty of an employer but not of the owner, rather than to a "safe place of employment."


Spencer v. County of Brown, 215 Wis. 2d 635, 573 N.W. 2d 222 (Ct. App. 1997)
Summary judgment for defendant. Affirmed.

Plaintiff jail inmate was injured when he slipped and fell while drying off after a shower. Held that the duty of the city under Wis. Stat. sec. 101.11 to design, equip, and maintain the jail was discretionary and so the city was immune under Wis. Stat. sec. 893.80(4).


Byers v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 208 Wis. 2d 388, 561 N.W. 2d 678 (S. Ct. 1997)
LIRC dismissal of employee's claim. Reversed by Circuit Court. Circuit Court reversed by Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals reversed by Supreme Court.

Held by Supreme Court that claims under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act are not subject to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers Compensation Act. The court distinguished WFEA from the safe-place law on the basis that the former created a claim for relief while the latter only established a standard of care.


Powell v. Milwaukee Area Technical College District Board, 225 Wis. 2d 794, 594 N.W. 2d 403 (Ct. App. 1999)
Summary judgments for defendants. Affirmed.

Plaintiff was injured from fall from a utility pole during a line mechanic training class conducted at a part of a power company facility leased to the technical college for such classes. Held the pole was not a structure under Wis. Stat. sec 101.11(12) for which the power company could be liable as owner of a public building, and pole was non-structural and not a temporary condition in the owner's control, so power company could be liable as owner of a place of employment.


Antwaun A. v. Heritage Mutual Insurance Company, 228 Wis. 2d 44, 596 N.W. 2d 456 (Ct. App. 1999)
Summary judgment for defendants. Affirmed (reversed in part on other grounds).

Plaintiff was injured by ingesting lead paint on premises parent rented from defendant. Held neither landlord's entry on premises to collect rent nor landlord's temporarily hiring another tenant to do repairs made the rental property a place of employment under Wis. Stat. sec. 101.11(2)(f), and bedroom where paint was ingested was not open to the public nor shared among building tenants and so landlord owed tenant no duty as owner of a public building, Wis. Stat. sec. 101.11(2)(g).


Werdehoff v. General Star Indemnity Company, 229 Wis. 2d 489, 600 N.W. 2d 214 (Ct. App. 1999)
Summary judgment for defendants. Reversed.

Plaintiff injured while racing a motorcycle at defendant's track. Held exculpatory contract signed by plaintiff also barred claim under the safe-place law.


Barry v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, 2000 WI App 168, 238 Wis. 2d 125, 617 N.W. 2d 493 (Ct. App. 2000)
Judgment on verdict for plaintiff. Reversed.

Plaintiff was injured when he tripped on a loose "nosing," a rubber strip added to the front edge of the treads on a stairway. Held that such a later modification was an unsafe condition associated with the premises rather than a structural defect and defendant as owner of a place of employment could not be liable in the absence of constructive notice of the unsafe condition.