Wisconsin Safe Place Law
13 décembre 2022

Steinhorst v. H.C. Prange Co., 48 Wis.2d 679, 180 N.W.2d 525 (1970) (plaintiff donned shaving foam while walking down the aisle for a men`s cosmetics self-service counter in a department store; “The dangerous situation in this case was essentially caused by the manner in which the goods were offered for sale.”); To make a claim under the Safe Premises Act, the plaintiff must prove: “(1) There was a dangerous condition related to the premises; (2) the dangerous occurrence caused injuries; and (3) the defendant had knowledge of the dangerous situation prior to the violation. Hofflander v. St. Catherine`s Hosp., Inc., 2003 WI 77, ¶89, 262 Wis. 2d 539, 664 N.W.2d 545. At the end of the discovery, Woodman`s sought summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not prove that Woodman`s knew that the dairy lay on the ground and therefore could not prove any essential element of his claim. The District Court dismissed the application because it concluded that there were real facts on the merits. Haggerty v. Village of Bruce, 82 Wis.2d 208, 262 N.W.2d 102 (1978) (municipal ordinances cannot delegate to the municipality the primary obligation to maintain its public sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition and, therefore, ordinances adjacent to landowners to remove snow and ice are limited to protecting the interests of the community and not those of its individual members); Callan v.

Peters Construction Co., 94 Wis.2d 225, 288 N.W.2d 146 (Ct. App. 1979) (evidence allowed jury to determine that store tenant had contravened the Safe Premises Act because of construction work and debris that he knew would pass through the store to enter); Balas v. St. Sebastian`s Congregation, 66 Wis.2d 421, 225 N.W.2d 428 (1975) (common law negligence cannot be established if a violation of the Safe Places Act cannot be proved); After review, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that a plaintiff does not need to prove the exact time of the occurrence of the dangerous condition as long as the evidence is sufficient to prove that it has existed long enough to constructively inform the defendant of its presence. The court also found that a jury can conclude from the CCTV video in this case that the dangerous condition persisted long enough to constructively inform the defendant of his presence. Dykstra v. Arthur G. McKee & Co., 92 Wis.2d 17, 284 N.W.2d 692 (Ct. App. 1979), aff`d, 100 Wis.2d 120, 301 N.W.2d 201 (1981), constructive communication about a dangerous occurrence existed if the general contractor and owner negligently failed to keep a concrete floor in a corridor within a building reasonably free of water and sand; obligations under the Safe Places Act cannot be delegated); In the typical case, the plaintiff alleges that the damage was the result of the defendant`s negligent design, construction or maintenance of hazardous premises, while the defendant denies the negligence, denies that the premises were unsafe, and asserts that the accident was due to the plaintiff`s contributory negligence. In such a case, the jury would answer questions in the verdict about whether and to what extent each party acted causally negligently.

The jury would also assess the plaintiff`s damages for medical expenses, loss of income, pain and suffering, and other relevant evidence, regardless of how the error questions were answered. If the plaintiff assessed a certain percentage of causal negligence up to 50%, he would prevail, but the damages would be reduced by the plaintiff`s percentage. If the jury did not find causal negligence on the part of the defendant or a higher percentage of causal negligence on the part of the plaintiff than on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff would lose. Strack v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 35 Wis.2d 51, 150 N.W.2d 361 (1967)( The plaintiff came across a “little Italian plum” in a supermarket; if the behaviour or operation of the owner or operator of the premises results in a dangerous situation, there must be a much shorter period, and perhaps not a significant period of time, to justify constructive communication; If a store displays its fruit in this way: whether he and customers fall or knock on the floor, the warehousekeeper must take appropriate steps to discover the debris and remove it from the ground. The merchant who does not take these steps has constructive knowledge of the condition if it causes a customer to slip and fall); At trial, the plaintiff presented surveillance camera video showing the part of the store where he slipped and fell to prove how long the substance remained on the floor. It was consistent between the parties that there was no evidence as to when the substance was deposited on the ground and that it was not possible to see the substance in the video. At the end of the plaintiff`s trial, Woodman sought direct judgment, arguing that the plaintiff`s failure to provide evidence showing how the substance he slipped on necessarily nullifies a “place of safety” claim.

The district court dismissed the claim, and the jury ultimately found that Woodman had constructive knowledge of the substance on the ground and that there had been a violation of the Safe Places Act. In Jose M. Correa, et al. v. Woodman`s Food Market, 2020 WI 43, the plaintiff slipped on an unknown substance while shopping at Woodman`s in the dairy cattle aisle. After the fall, the plaintiff wiped the substance from his shoe with a paper towel. Woodman`s surveillance camera captured all of these events. In his lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that Woodman violated Wisconsin`s Safe Place Act, which states, among other things, that “every owner of a workplace or public building constructed now or hereafter shall construct, repair, or maintain such workplace or public building in a manner that is safe.” Wis.

Stat. § 101.11. Megal v. Green Bay Area Visitor and Convention Bureau, Inc., 274 Wis.2d 162, 682 N.W.2d 857 (2004) (no specific liability for falling on a French fry left in place for an indefinite period, but claims for negligence at common law could be invoked to establish liability); Rosario v. Acuity and Oliver Adjustment Co., Inc., 2007 WI App. 194, 738N.W.2d 608 (Ct. App. 2007) (the 10-year limitation period expires the secure space claim against the owner of the building for a fractured foot suffered while tripping and falling on a 3-inch step, which violated the State Building Code because it was a structural defect that had existed for more than 10 years); Barry v.

Courage of employers. Co. Case, 245 Wis.2d 571, 630 N.W.2d 522 (2001) (Wisconsin`s Safe Place Statute is a negligent statute that “establishes a duty greater than ordinary care imposed at common law; if the condition causing the damage is a dangerous condition associated with the structure, the owner of the land can only be held liable if he or she actually or effectively noticed the defect); (11) historical records of the security or lack thereof of the premises; Most cases of liability are hotly contested. In many cases, both the plaintiff and the defendant are at fault. For each claimant that the walking surface was unsafe, there is an affirmative defence of the owner or occupant of the premises that the plaintiff should have sought at the location where the plaintiff was walking prior to the fall. The distribution of negligence is often between 40% and 60% between each party. If the plaintiff receives 40% of the debt, the plaintiff receives 60% of the plaintiff`s damages, but if the plaintiff receives 60% of the debt, the plaintiff loses. As a general rule, it is difficult for the plaintiff to prove not only that the premises were not safe, but also that the defendant acted negligently. Proof of negligence requires proof that the defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous situation and that the defendant did not exercise due diligence to remedy the dangerous situation prior to the accident.