Case Name: Lewko, by guardian ad litem, Appellant, vs. Chas. A. Krause Milling Company, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1922-12-05
Citations: 179 Wis. 83
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lewko, by guardian ad litem, Appellant, vs. Chas. A. Krause Milling Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 179
Pages: 83–94

Head Matter:
Lewko, by guardian ad litem, Appellant, vs. Chas. A. Krause Milling Company, Respondent.
November 10
December 5, 1922.
Negligence: Licensees and trespassers: Invitees: Child falling into open steam pit: Liability of landowner: Pleading.
1. As against a general demurrer, the allegations of a complaint must be construed most favorably to plaintiff.
2. A complaint in an action to recover for injuries to a child who fell into an open steam pit on defendant’s premises which alleged that children were in the habit of playing on defendant’s land to its knowledge — from which it might be implied with its permission — does not show that the plaintiff was there by invitation. At most he was a licensee on private property.
3. A mere licensee on private property takes the premises as he finds them, the owner owing him no duty save to refrain from active negligence rendering the premises dangerous.
4. Useful and not grossly negligent conditions and appliances on private property do not render the owner liable to mere licensees or trespassers, and the steam pit — open, obvious, and useful, although also dangerous — cannot be classed as a hidden trap or death-dealing instrumentality.
CrownhaRT, J., dissents.
Appeal from an order of the .circuit court for Milwaukee county: Gustave G. Gehez, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
Action to' recover damages for injuries sustained by a boy four, and one-half years of age who fell into a steam pit located upon defendant’s premises; The complaint alleged, among other;, things, that
“The defendant is the owner of a large piece of real estate upon which stands its mill, and has considerable rfeal estate surrounding the said mill. That outside of its mill and on a part of its real estate which is not fenced and which is open and accessible to every one and especially to children who are in the habit to play thereon, which heretofore maintained a large hole about three feet in diameter and about five or six feet deep, and that said hole was connected with the mill of the defendant by a pipe and was frequently filled with hot or boiling water, and that the said pipe carried from said mill hot steam into the said hole. That the said mill is located in a thickly populated residence district containing many children and that the said real estate where said hole was located was known to the defendant to be constantly frequented by children who used said vacant property for the purpose of play, games, and recreation. That the said real estate and said hole heretofore described was of such a'character and in such condition that it was attractive to children and was so situated that it was likely to and known to the defendant to be likely to and that it did constantly attract small children to play thereon, and that children habitually played on said real estate and around and about the said hole. That the said Anton Lewko, Jr., together, with a number of other small children of approximately his own age, played on said real estate and around and about the said hole, and that the said Anton Lezvko, Jr., fell into the said hole and was burned and scalded by the hot water and steam therein and injured. That the defendant was negligent in failing to provide any warning, guards, or means of preventing children from using the said real estate or playing around about or in the said hole heretofore described. That the said injury to the said Anton Lewko, Jr., was caused solely and proximately by the negligence of the defendant in failing to prevent children from frequenting the said real estate and playing in and about the hole and in failing to provide any warning, guard, fence, or appliance of any kind which would reasonably protect and prevent children from playing around and about the said hole.”
The defendant entered a general demurrer to the complaint which was sustained. From an order entered accordingly the plaintiff appealed.
For the appellant there was a brief by Richter & Nebel of Milwaukee, and oral argument by A. W. Richter.
For the respondent there was a brief by Freeman & Bendinger, attorneys, and George C. Hofer, of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by Mr. Hofer.

Opinion:
Vinje, C. J.
We are again called upon to distinguish between cases where the plaintiff is a trespasser or mere licensee and where he is an invitee or where he has a right to be, as in a public street or highway. Here the allegations of the complaint, construed most favorably to the plaintiff, as they should be, make him out at most only a licensee. He was on private property, perhaps <with the knowledge of the defendant and perhaps not. All the complaint alleges is that children were in the habit of playing on defendant's land to its knowledge, not that it knew plaintiff played on its land, but it can be implied from this that it permitted them to do so. But mere permission or license does not imply invitation. Muench v. Heinemann, 119 Wis. 441, 447, 96 N. W. 800. So that at most he was only a licensee on private property. The law is well settled in this state and in most of the sister states that a mere licensee on private property takes the premises as he finds them. The owner owes him no duty save to refrain from active negligence rendering the premises dangerous. Cahill v. Layton, 57 Wis. 600, 16 N. W. 1; Muench v. Heinemann, 119 Wis. 441, 96 N. W. 800; Brinilson v. C. & N. W. R. Co. 144 Wis. 614, 129 N. W. 664; 20 Ruling Case Law, 51 et seq. The same rule applies to trespassers. Zartner v. George, 156 Wis. 131, 145 N. W. 971; Emond v. Kimberly-Clark Co. 159 Wis. 83, 149 N. W. 760; 20 Ruling Case Law, 57 et seq.
Where this court has held a defendant liable for a dangerous condition of premises as to licensees or trespassers it has been in cases such as Kelly v. Southern Wis. R. Co. 152 Wis. 328, 140 N. W. 60, and Ptak v. Kuetemeyer, 177 Wis. 262, 187 N. W. 1000, where the dangers were in public streets where children had a right to be; or in cases where the danger constituted a hidden death trap as did the electric wires in Meyer v. Menominee & M. L. & T. Co. 151 Wis. 279, 138 N. W. 1008, or an obscured pitfall in a licensed pathway as in Brinilson v. C. & N. W. R. Co. 144 Wis. 614, 129 N. W. 664, which was held to constitute active negligence.
Useful and not grossly negligent conditions and appliances on private property do not render the owner thereof liable to mere licensees or trespassers. To do so they must be of such a character as to constitute active negligence. The pit in question was open, obvious, and useful, and though dangerous to children, and perhaps to adults also, , it cannot be classed as a hidden trap- or a concealed death-dealing iástrumentality.
By the Court. — Order affirmed.