Title: Diane Meyer v. School District of Colby

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
98-0482 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
 
Diane Meyer,  
 
Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
v. 
School District of Colby, Wausau Underwriters 
Insurance Company, and Security Health Plan of 
Wisconsin, Inc.,  
 
Defendants-Respondents.  
 
ON REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at:  221 Wis. 2d 513, 585 N.W.2d 690 
 
 
 
(Ct. App. 1998-Published) 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
June 18, 1999 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
May 5, 1999 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Clark 
 
JUDGE: 
Michael W. Brennan 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the plaintiff-appellant there were briefs by 
Susanne M. Glasser and Bye, Goff & Rohde, Ltd., River Falls and 
oral argument by Susanne M. Glasser. 
 
 
For the defendant-respondent there were briefs by 
Mark W. Parman and Stilp and Cotton, Wausau and oral argument by 
Mark W. Parman. 
 
 
 
 
 
Amicus curiae brief was filed by George Burnett 
and Liebmann, Conway, Olejniczak & Jerry, S.C., Green Bay for the 
Wisconsin Academy of Trial Laywers. 
 
No. 
98-0482 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing and 
modification.  The final version will appear in 
the bound volume of the official reports. 
 
 
No. 98-0482 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Diane Meyer, 
 
 
Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
 
v. 
 
School District of Colby, Wausau 
Underwriters Insurance Company and 
Security Health Plan of Wisconsin, Inc., 
 
 
Defendants-Respondents. 
 
FILED 
 
JUN 18, 1999 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed and 
cause remanded. 
¶1 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE.   This is a 
review of a published decision of the court of appeals, Meyer v. 
School District of Colby, 221 Wis. 2d 513, 585 N.W.2d 690 (Ct. 
App. 1998).  The court of appeals affirmed an order of the 
Circuit Court for Clark County, Michael W. Brennan, Judge, for 
summary judgment dismissing Diane Meyer's complaint for damages.  
¶2 
The only issue presented is whether the School 
District of Colby is immune from liability under Wisconsin's 
recreational immunity statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.52 (1993-94),1 
for injuries Diane Meyer, the plaintiff, sustained while 
                     
1 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 1993-94 version unless otherwise noted.  
No. 
98-0482 
 
2 
attending a junior varsity football game on Colby High School 
grounds.  More specifically, this issue involves the question 
whether under Wis. Stat. § 895.52(1)(g) the plaintiff's activity 
at the time of injury comes within the statutory exception to 
the definition of "recreational activity."  Section 895.52(1)(g) 
provides that recreational activity "does not include any 
organized team sport activity sponsored by the owner of the 
property on which the activity takes place."  
¶3 
The circuit court held that at the time of her injury 
the plaintiff was engaged in the activity of being a spectator 
and 
that 
this 
activity 
falls 
within 
the 
definition 
of 
recreational activity and not within the organized team sport 
exception.  The circuit court therefore granted summary judgment 
in favor of the School District, as well as Wausau Underwriters 
Insurance Company, the School District's liability carrier, and 
dismissed the complaint.2   
¶4 
The court of appeals affirmed the order of the circuit 
court and held that "the organized team sport activity exception 
[Wis. Stat. § 895.52(1)(g)] does not extend to spectators who 
are not participants in the excepted activity and whose injuries 
do not arise out of the team sport activity or the actions of 
participants in that activity."  Meyer, 221 Wis. 2d at 522.  
¶5 
We reverse the decision of the court of appeals and 
hold that the School District is not immune from liability to 
                     
2 The plaintiff also sued Security Health Plan of Wisconsin, 
Inc., her health care provider. Security Health Plan did not 
participate in the summary judgment proceedings. 
No. 
98-0482 
 
3 
this plaintiff.  We conclude that the organized team sport 
activity exception of Wis. Stat. § 895.52(1)(g) extends to 
spectators whose injuries do not arise out of the team sport 
activity or out of the actions of participants in that activity. 
 We therefore remand the cause to the circuit court for further 
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 
 
I 
 
¶6 
For purposes of summary judgment, the facts are not in 
dispute.  On the evening of September 9, 1996, the plaintiff, 
Diane Meyer, attended a football game at the Colby High School 
football field to watch her son, Daniel, play on the junior 
varsity team.  The plaintiff sat in the top row of the bleachers 
adjoining the football field to watch the game.  The football 
field and the bleachers are part of the Colby High School 
grounds and maintained by the School District.  After the game 
ended, the plaintiff was descending from her seat when one of 
the wooden bleachers suddenly broke, causing her to fall and 
sustain injury. 
¶7 
On July 28, 1997, the plaintiff filed a complaint 
alleging that her injuries from this fall were proximately 
caused by the negligence of the School District.3  The School 
                     
3 The complaint also alleged a violation of the Safe Place 
Statute, Wis. Stat. § 101.11, and stated that the District had 
been duly served with a notice of claim and a claim as required 
by Wis. Stat. § 893.80.  
No. 
98-0482 
 
4 
District's answer asserted the affirmative defense of immunity 
under Wis. Stat. § 895.52, the recreational immunity statute.4  
On October 30, 1997, the School District moved for summary 
judgment and dismissal of the complaint.  The motion was granted 
by the circuit court.  The court of appeals affirmed the order 
of the circuit court, and the plaintiff seeks review in this 
court. 
 
II 
 
¶8 
This court reviews a summary judgment using the same 
methodology as the circuit court.  State ex. rel. Auchinleck v. 
Town of LaGrange, 200 Wis. 2d 585, 591-92, 547 N.W.2d 587 
(1996).  The methodology of summary judgment is set forth in 
Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2), which provides that summary judgment 
shall be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to 
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to 
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law." 
 
III 
 
                     
4 Defendant Security Health Plan of Wisconsin, Inc., also 
filed an answer, as well as a counterclaim and a cross-claim for 
purposes of asserting a right to subrogation.  
No. 
98-0482 
 
5 
¶9 
The issue presented in this case is one of statutory 
interpretation.  Interpretation of a statute and application of 
a statute to undisputed facts are ordinarily questions of law 
that this court considers independent of the decisions of the 
circuit court and court of appeals, but benefiting from their 
analyses.  
¶10 We must determine whether the plaintiff's suit is 
barred by the recreational immunity statute, which limits an 
owner's liability for an injury to someone engaging in a 
recreational activity on the owner's property.5  Because the line 
between recreational and nonrecreational activities is difficult 
to draw, the issue of whether an injured party was engaged in a 
recreational activity as defined by the statute is litigated 
                     
5 Wis. Stat. § 895.52(2) provides, in relevant part, as 
follows: 
(2) NO DUTY; IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY. (a) Except as 
provided in subs. (3) to (6), no owner and no officer, 
employe or agent of an owner owes to any person who enters 
the owner's property to engage in a recreational activity: 
1. A duty to keep the property safe for recreational 
activities. 
2. A duty to inspect the property . . . .  
3. A duty to give warning of an unsafe condition, use or 
activity on the property. 
(b) Except as provided in subs. (3) to (6), no owner and no 
officer, employe or agent of an owner is liable for any 
injury to, or any injury caused by, a person engaging in a 
recreational activity on the owner's property. . . . 
No. 
98-0482 
 
6 
with some frequency.6  The court of appeals wisely concluded in 
this case that "as with any grant of immunity from liability, 
the result of applying the recreational immunity statute may 
seem harsh in an individual case, and it may seem incompatible 
with outcomes based on closely similar facts."  Meyer, 221 
Wis. 2d at 525. 
¶11 The statutory definition of recreational activity 
explicitly provides that recreational activity "does not include 
any organized team sport activity sponsored by the owner of 
property on which the activity takes place."  Wis. Stat. 
§ 895.52(1)(g).7   
                     
6 For a list of several cases, see Sievert v. American 
Family Mut. Ins. Co., 190 Wis. 2d 623, 627 n.2, 528 N.W.2d 413 
(1995). 
7 The recreational immunity statute defines "recreational 
activity" in Wis. Stat. § 895.52(1)(g), as follows: 
 
(g) "Recreational activity" means any outdoor activity 
undertaken for the purpose of exercise, relaxation or 
pleasure, including practice or instruction in any such 
activity.  "Recreational activity" includes, but is not 
limited 
to, 
hunting, 
fishing, 
trapping, 
camping, 
picnicking, 
exploring 
caves, 
nature 
study, 
bicycling, 
horseback riding, bird-watching, motorcycling, operating an 
all-terrain vehicle, ballooning, hang gliding, hiking, 
tobogganing, sledding, sleigh riding, snowmobiling, skiing, 
skating, water sports, sight-seeing, rock-climbing, cutting 
or removing wood, climbing observation towers, animal 
training, harvesting the products of nature and any other 
outdoor sport, game or educational activity, but does not 
include any organized team sport activity sponsored by the 
owner of the property on which the activity takes place.  
[Emphasis added.] 
No. 
98-0482 
 
7 
¶12 No one disputes that the junior varsity football game 
was an organized team sport activity, that the School District 
was the sponsor of the activity8 or that the School District was 
the owner of the property on which the game took place.9  The 
sole issue in this case is whether the organized team sport 
activity exception extends to spectators at an event or whether 
it is limited to athletes and others who directly participate in 
an 
organized 
team 
sport. 
 
By 
its 
terms, 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 895.52(1)(g) neither includes nor excepts spectators. 
¶13 No one disputes that the plaintiff's attendance at the 
junior varsity football game, in the absence of the organized 
team sport activity statutory exception, would be a recreational 
activity.  The case law is clear that a spectator who attends a 
recreational activity is engaged in a recreational activity.  
Generally, "attendance . . . as a spectator at a ball game in 
the park qualifies as recreational activity."  Kostroski v. 
                     
8 The court of appeals has held that a city was a "sponsor" 
within the meaning of the organized team sport exception when it 
took team registrations, maintained the grounds and provided 
umpires, score keepers, bases and softballs.  Hupf v. City of 
Appleton, 165 Wis. 2d 215, 222, 477 N.W.2d 69 (Ct. App. 1991). 
9 The recreational immunity statute defines "owner" to 
include a governmental body, which in turn includes a municipal 
body, 
such 
as 
the 
School 
District. 
 
See 
Wis. 
Stat. 
§ 895.52(1)(a) & (d).  
No. 
98-0482 
 
8 
County of Marathon, 158 Wis. 2d 201, 203, 462 N.W.2d 542 (Ct. 
App. 1990).10 
¶14 The School District argues that our interpretation of 
Wis. Stat. § 895.52(1)(g) in this case should end at this point. 
 The School District contends that because the plaintiff is a 
spectator, her activity is recreational and the School District 
is therefore immune from liability.  The focus, according to the 
School District, is on the plaintiff's activity, not on the 
activity of others.  According to the School District, it makes 
no difference what activity was (or was not) taking place on the 
field; what matters, argues the School District, is the 
plaintiff's activity as a spectator.  Therefore, the School 
District asserts that the plaintiff cannot bootstrap her 
recreational activity as a spectator into the organized team 
sport exception just because she happened to be a spectator at 
an organized team sport activity. 
¶15 The court of appeals agreed with the School District's 
analysis and concluded that because the plaintiff in this case 
had never been a participant in the organized team sport 
activity, her injuries were "not inextricably connected to the 
organized 
team 
sport 
activity 
itself," 
and 
her 
activity 
                     
10 At oral argument, counsel for the School District 
acknowledged a factual distinction between Kostroski and this 
case and agreed that a company softball game or "pick-up game" 
would not qualify as an organized team sport because it is an 
individual, single event.  
No. 
98-0482 
 
9 
therefore does not fall within the organized team sport 
exception to recreational activity.11  Meyer, 221 Wis. 2d at 522. 
¶16 In its interpretation of the plaintiff's activity and 
the organized team sport exception, the court of appeals relied 
on Sievert v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 190 Wis. 2d 623, 
632, 528 N.W.2d 413 (1995).  In Sievert, the injured party 
walked onto his neighbor's dock to say hello.  Although the dock 
was used for recreational activities and the owner may have been 
engaged in recreational activities at the time, the Sievert 
court held that the injured party was not himself engaging in 
recreational activities.  The Sievert court looked to the nature 
of the injured person's activities under the facts of that case 
and concluded that the "the delineation of an activity as 
recreational does not turn on the nature of the property owner's 
activity but rather on the nature of the property user's 
activity."  Sievert, 190 Wis. 2d at 632. 
¶17 Under its reading of Sievert, the court of appeals 
focused in this case solely on the nature of the plaintiff's 
activity and gave no consideration to the nature of the School 
District's activity.  This reading of Sievert is too narrow. 
                     
11 The court of appeals distinguishes this case from Hupf, 
165 Wis. 2d 215, in which a softball player who was struck in 
the eye by a softball as he was leaving the park was held to be 
within the organized team sport exception.  Thus the court of 
appeals has allowed an athlete exiting a ballpark to recover for 
injuries, but in its decision in this case did not allow a 
spectator to be covered. 
No. 
98-0482 
 
10
¶18 The Sievert court relied on the test set forth in 
Linville v. City of Janesville, 184 Wis. 2d 705, 516 N.W.2d 427 
(1994), for determining whether an injured person was engaging 
in a recreational activity at the time of injury.  Determining 
whether an injured person is engaging in a recreational activity 
requires examination of "all aspects of the activity," including 
"the intrinsic nature, purpose and consequence of the activity." 
 Linville, 184 Wis. 2d at 716 (quoting Linville v. City of 
Janesville, 174 Wis. 2d 571, 579-80, 497 N.W.2d 465 (Ct. App. 
1993)).  Furthermore, "why [the injured person] was on the 
property is pertinent."  Id.  As the Sievert court explained, a 
court should not rely exclusively on the characteristics of the 
property; the characteristics of the property on which an 
activity is undertaken are not determinative of the issue.  The 
Sievert court did not, however, hold that the nature of the 
property on which an activity is undertaken should never be 
considered. 
¶19 Adhering to the Sievert-Linville analysis in this case 
involving the organized team sport exception in Wis. Stat. 
§ 895.52(1)(g), we must examine not only the plaintiff's reason 
for being on the property but also the activity taking place on 
the property.  In other words, we must consider not only that 
the plaintiff was a spectator but also the activity at which the 
plaintiff was a spectator.  If in this case the plaintiff had 
been sitting on the bleachers to watch a sunset or to enjoy a 
free band concert sponsored by the School District, the School 
District would not be liable for her injuries.  But the 
No. 
98-0482 
 
11
plaintiff in this case was watching an organized team sport 
activity, an activity that is excepted as a recreational 
activity by § 895.52(1)(g). 
¶20 If the legislature had intended to limit the organized 
team sport activity exception to team players it could have done 
so expressly.  But nothing in the statute limits the exception 
to team players as the School District argues; nothing in the 
statute indicates that the various classes of people involved in 
an organized team sport activity, such as players, coaches, 
umpires, 
and 
spectators, 
are 
to 
be 
treated 
differently.  
Further, there is nothing in the legislative history, the case 
law or the decision of the court of appeals in this case that 
explains why an owner who sponsors an organized team sport 
activity should be liable to some persons but not to others.  
The court of appeals focused on the legislature's intention to 
immunize owners who open their property to the public for 
recreational activities.  The court of appeals placed less 
emphasis on the legislature's equally important and expressed 
objective that owners of property who sponsor organized team 
sport activities be required to exercise ordinary care and be 
liable for negligence.  
¶21 Adhering to the language of Wis. Stat. § 895.52(1)(g) 
and to the test set forth in the Seivert-Linville cases to 
determine whether an injured person's activity is a recreational 
activity, we conclude that the plaintiff falls within the 
organized team sport activity exception under § 895.52(1)(g) and 
No. 
98-0482 
 
12
that the School District is not immune from the plaintiff's 
suit.   
¶22 Our reading of Wis. Stat. § 895.52(1)(g) comports with 
the policy impetus behind recreational immunity legislation, 
which was to encourage owners to open their property to persons 
engaging in recreational activities because there was an 
insufficient amount of property to meet an increasing demand for 
recreational activity.12  Because there is no shortage of 
facilities for organized team sport activities that an owner 
sponsors, no reason exists to immunize owners who sponsor 
organized sports activities on their property from liability for 
not exercising ordinary care in the maintenance of those 
facilities. 
¶23 Unlike property that might be closed to the public if 
no immunity were provided to the owner, organized team sport 
facilities are constructed to attract the public to the owner's 
sponsored events.  Therefore, the statute's policy impetus of 
encouraging owners to open their otherwise closed property for 
recreational activities is generally inapplicable to property on 
which an owner sponsors an organized team sport activity.   
¶24 The School District contends that the position we 
adopt today runs counter to the legislative intent stated in 
                     
12 See Comment, Wisconsin Recreational Use Statute: Towards 
Sharpening the Picture at the Edges, 1991 Wis. L. Rev. 491, 504 
(1991).  See also Silingo v. Village of Mukwonago, 156 Wis. 2d 
536, 544, 458 N.W.2d 379 (Ct. App. 1990); Hall v. Turtle Lake 
Lions Club, 146 Wis. 2d 486, 489, 431 N.W.2d 696 (Ct. App. 
1988). 
No. 
98-0482 
 
13
1983 Wis. Act 418, which it reads as limiting liability of 
owners 
of 
property 
and 
liberally 
construing 
the 
term 
recreational activity in favor of owners.  The applicable 
portion of that enactment provides the following: 
 
While it is not possible to specify in a statute every 
activity 
which 
might 
constitute 
a 
recreational 
activity, this act provides examples of the kinds of 
activities that are meant to be included, and the 
legislature intends that, where substantially similar 
circumstances or activities exist, this legislation 
should be liberally construed in favor of property 
owners to protect them from liability. 
1983 Wis. Act 418, § 1.   
¶25 We 
agree 
with 
the 
court 
of 
appeals 
that 
the 
legislative statement of intent in 1983 Wis. Act 418, § 1, 
calling for a broad interpretation of the term "recreational 
activity" is of limited assistance in this case.  This case does 
not ask us to interpret whether an activity is substantially 
similar to one of the examples of recreational activity 
enumerated in the statute.  Instead, this case requires us to 
interpret the scope of the express, legislatively created 
exception for an organized team sport activity.  
¶26 According to the School District, reading Wis. Stat. 
§ 895.52(4)(a) and § 895.52 (1)(g) together demonstrates that a 
governmental body loses immunity with respect to spectators only 
when it charges an admission fee for an event.  Wisconsin Stat. 
§ 895.52(4)(a) provides that the recreational immunity statute 
does not limit the liability of a governmental body for "injury 
that occurs on property of which a governmental body is the 
No. 
98-0482 
 
14
owner at any event for which the owner charges an admission fee 
for spectators."13  Because § 895.52(4)(a) provides that a 
governmental body charging admission to spectators is liable to 
spectators, the School District argues that the inference is 
that a governmental entity not charging an admission fee to 
spectators should be immune from liability.  
¶27 The School District asserts that the legislature 
intended this inference because when admission fees are charged, 
an owner can control who comes on the property.  On the other 
hand, when no admission fee is charged an owner cannot control 
who attends an event and should therefore be immune from 
liability. 
¶28 We agree with the court of appeals that the immunity 
provision of Wis. Stat. § 895.52(4)(a) does not require the 
inference urged by the School District.  The legislature has 
                     
13 In its entirety, Wis. Stat. § 895.52(4) provides the 
following: 
(4) LIABILIITY; PROPERTY OF GOVERNMENTAL BODIES OTHER 
THAN THE STATE.  Subsection (2) does not limit the 
liability of a governmental body other than the state 
or any of its agencies or of an officer, employe or 
agent of such a governmental body for either of the 
following: 
 
 
(a) An injury that occurs on property of which a 
governmental body is the owner at any event for which 
the owner charges an admission fee for spectators. 
 
 
(b) An injury caused by a malicious act or by a 
malicious failure to warn against an unsafe condition 
of 
which 
an 
officer, 
employe 
or 
agent 
of 
a 
governmental body knew, which occurs on property 
designated by the governmental body for recreational 
activities. 
No. 
98-0482 
 
15
provided these two separate and different exceptions in two 
different parts of the statute, one for organized team sport 
activities and one for events at which the owner charges an 
admission fee for spectators.  The exception for events at which 
a governmental property owner charges an admission fee for 
spectators applies even when the event in question is not an 
organized team sport activity.  For example, had the plaintiff 
been injured while attending a band concert for which the School 
District charged spectators an admission fee, the School 
District would not be immune.  The two exceptions function 
independently.  We need not, and do not, infer from the 
existence of one that the scope of the other is narrowed.  
¶29 In sum, we hold that the plaintiff's attendance at the 
junior varsity football game falls within the organized team 
sport activity exception delineated in Wis. Stat. § 895.52(1)(g) 
and that the plaintiff was not engaged in a recreational 
activity within the meaning of the recreational immunity 
statute.  Accordingly we hold that the School District is not 
immune from the plaintiff's suit.  We reverse the decision of 
the court of appeals and remand the cause for reinstatement of 
the complaint. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed and the cause remanded. 
 
 
1