Opinion ID: 1822581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: safe place statute

Text: [30-32] ¶ 87. Hofflander also seeks relief under Wis. Stat. § 101.11, [27] Wisconsin's safe place statute. Under this statute, owners of a place of employment or a public building have the duty to repair or maintain the premises in as safe a condition as the nature of the premises reasonably permits. McGuire v. Stein's Gift & Garden Ctr., Inc., 178 Wis. 2d 379, 398, 504 N.W.2d 385 (Ct. App. 1993) (citing Dykstra v. Arthur G. McKee & Co., 92 Wis. 2d 17, 26, 284 N.W.2d 692, 697 (Ct. App. 1979), affd, 100 Wis. 2d 120, 301 N.W.2d 201 (1981)). The safe place standard imposes a more stringent duty of care than the ordinary care otherwise applicable to one's conduct. Barry v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 2001 WI 101, ¶ 18, 245 Wis. 2d 560, 630 N.W.2d 517; Topp v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 83 Wis. 2d 780, 788, 266 N.W.2d 397 (1978). However, comparative negligence remains applicable to alleged violations of the safe place statute. D.L. v. Huebner, 110 Wis. 2d 581, 645, 329 N.W.2d 890 (1983) (citing Presser v. Siesel Constr. Co., 19 Wis. 2d 54, 119 N.W.2d 405 (1963)). As a result, the statute does not render an owner or employer an insurer of persons on the owner's property, McGuire, 178 Wis. 2d at 398, nor does it create a duty that is breached simply because the premises could be made safer, see Gross v. Denow, 61 Wis. 2d 40, 46, 212 N.W.2d 2 (1973) (citing Paaske v. Perfex Corp., 24 Wis. 2d 485, 490, 129 N.W.2d 198 (1964)). ¶ 88. The application of § 101.11 to this case raises two issues. First, did the defendants violate the safe place statute on account of the alleged loose condition of the air conditioner, or did Hofflander's own negligent conduct cause her injury? Second, was Hofflander a trespasser in Room 309, the location from which she attempted to escape, thereby diminishing the defendants' duty of care to her under the statute? We address each of these issues in turn. [33] ¶ 89. To succeed in a claim under the safe place statute, Hofflander bears the burden of showing that (1) there was an unsafe condition associated with the structure; (2) the unsafe condition caused Hofflander's injury; and (3) the caregivers had either actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition before Hofflander's injury. See Topp, 83 Wis. 2d at 787-88 (citing Fitzgerald v. Badger State Mut. Cas. Co., 67 Wis. 2d 321, 326, 227 N.W.2d 444, 446 (1975)). All three elements must be proven to obtain recovery under the statute. Id. ¶ 90. The court of appeals blurred this analysis by adopting a Michigan test for determining the existence of an unsafe condition and by eliminating the element of causation. See Hofflander, 247 Wis. 2d 636, ¶¶ 29-30. Citing two Michigan court decisions applying a Michigan statute comparable to Wis. Stat. § 101.11, [28] the court of appeals stated that when determining whether an unsafe condition exists on the premises, we must consider the use or purpose the premises serve. Id., ¶ 30 (citing Lockaby v. County of Wayne, 276 N.W.2d 1, 2-3 (Mich. 1979), and Bush v. Oscoda Area Sch., 275 N.W.2d 268, 273 (Mich. 1979)). The court instructed the circuit court to focus not on Hofflander's act of removing the air conditioner, but on the state of repair of the air conditioner itself. Hofflander, 247 Wis. 2d 636, ¶ 30. Utilizing this focus, the court of appeals declared that, in this case, there exists a question of fact for a jury to determine whether a loose air conditioning unit, located in a room used by mentally disturbed patients, was an unsafe condition . . . . Id. (emphasis added). [34] ¶ 91. Wisconsin's safe place statute governs only unsafe physical conditions of premises. It does not involve reckless or negligent acts of persons on the premises. See Stefanovich v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 86 Wis. 2d 161, 166-71, 271 N.W.2d 867 (1978) (discussing cases applying this rule); see also Korenak v. Curative Workshop Adult Rehabil. Ctr., 71 Wis. 2d 77, 84, 237 N.W.2d 43 (1976). This acts of operation rule is well established in Wisconsin case law. [29] ¶ 92. The Michigan test employed by the court of appeals is not wholly inconsistent with Wisconsin law. For instance, in 1953 this court considered the sufficiency of a complaint alleging that a hospital had violated the safe place statute by failing to maintain a window and window screen in a safe condition, so that when a four-year-old patient pressed against the screen, it gave way and he fell five floors out of the window. Wright v. St Mary's Hosp. of Franciscan Sisters, Racine, 265 Wis. 502, 61 N.W.2d 900 (1953). We ruled that the complaint stated a cause of action, saying: The acts complained of in this case might not constitute negligence if the patient were a normal adult, but the duty here was to a small child. The standards of care to be complied with by the defendant are fixed by statute, which impose a duty beyond that imposed by common law. It is contended that the screen mentioned in the complaint was to keep flies and insects out and not keep patients in the hospital. That is probably true. The ultimate question in this case is whether the defendant should have guarded an open window in a children's ward in order to render the building safe. Id. at 505-06. ¶ 93. Six years later in Wisconsin Bridge & Iron Co. v. Industrial Commission, 8 Wis. 2d 612, 99 N.W.2d 817 (1959), we considered a case in which a roofer fell through a hole in a roof. The hole had been created by a general contractor who put unprotected canvas over the hole. The court observed that the safe-place statute requires the employer . . . to anticipate what the premises will be used for and to inspect them to make sure they are safe. Id. at 618. [35] ¶ 94. In both of these cases, however, the unsafe condition was the sole responsibility of the employer. The injured party did nothing to create the unsafe condition. The same cannot be said here. In directing the circuit court not to focus on Hofflander's act of removing the air conditioner, the court of appeals disregarded the acts of operation rule that is a central tenet of Wisconsin safe place law. There is no doubt that an unsafe condition existed after the air conditioner was ripped from the window. The unsafe condition was the open window. Lori Hofflander acted to create the open window and acted to elope through the open window. A loose air conditioner did not cause Hofflander's injury. [36] ¶ 95. The intended use or purpose of premises test, as defined by the court of appeals, eliminates a good part of Hofflander's required burden of proof. It eviscerates the acts of operation principle and wipes out causation. The only factual questions that the court of appeals stated must be determined by a jury on remand are whether a loose air conditioning unit, located in a room used by mentally disturbed patients, was an unsafe condition and, if so, whether St. Catherine's and Horizon had constructive notice of it. Hofflander, 247 Wis. 2d 636, ¶ 30. By this language, the court of appeals appeared to disallow any inquiry into Hofflander's causation of her injury. The court of appeals withdrew from the fact finder's consideration the reality that Hofflander's acts, not an unsafe condition associated with the structure, caused her injury The result is strict liability, [30] a result not intended by the safe place statute. ¶ 96. The safe place statute merely affects the level of one's duty of care; it does not alter the analysis of causation. [31] It is well established in Wisconsin that the safe-place statute does not create a cause of action. `It merely lays down a standard of care and if those to whom it applies violate the provisions thereof they are negligent.' Krause v. Veterans of Foreign Wars Post No. 6498, 9 Wis. 2d 547, 552, 101 N.W.2d 645 (1960) (quoting Ermis v. Fed. Windows Mfg. Co., 7 Wis. 2d 549, 555, 97 N.W.2d 485 (1959)). Therefore, even if we were to agree that the existence of a loose air conditioner in a room used by mentally disturbed patients was, per se, an unsafe condition, the court of appeals' analysis was incomplete. The issue of whether that condition caused the injuries sustained must be separately addressed. ¶ 97. When addressing this issue, the undisputed facts of this case show that the air conditioner did not cause any direct harm. This is not an instance where an air conditioner was in such a state of disrepair that, without reckless or negligent action by anyone, it fell from its mounting and caused harm. Instead there was negligent action by the plaintiff. This is what makes the case completely different from Wright and Wisconsin Bridge & Iron. But for Lori Hofflander grabbing and tearing the air conditioner out from its mounting in the window, the air conditioner was reasonably safe, even assuming that the screws supporting the air conditioner were loose or too short. [32] Under these facts, there can be no viable claim under Wis. Stat. § 101.11. ¶ 98. In reaching its conclusion, the court of appeals rejected the defendants' reliance on Barth v. Downey Co., 71 Wis. 2d 775, 239 N.W.2d 92 (1976), as controlling. Hofflander, 247 Wis. 2d 636, ¶ 29. In Barth, the plaintiff, who was an employee for a subcontractor charged with removing ceiling-high ventilation ducts, climbed into a duct after having weakened its adjacent supports. Barth, 71 Wis. 2d at 776-77. While the employee was in the duct, the bottom of the supported section on which he was kneeling tore apart, causing him to fall and suffer injuries. Id. at 777. We held that the situation constituted an act that was unsafe rather than a condition that was unsafe, under § 101.11(1). Id. at 779. The court of appeals did not attempt to distinguish Barth from this case. It offered a different analysis based upon a different rule. However, just as the ceiling duct in Barth did not become unsafe until the plaintiff had weakened its support, so too the air conditioner did not constitute an unsafe condition until Hofflander removed it. ¶ 99. We need not decide, at this time, whether the intended use or intended purpose doctrine, as employed in Michigan, is ever a proper component of Wis. Stat. § 101.11(1)'s requirement that premises [be] kept as free from danger as the nature of the place will reasonably permit. See Gould v. Allstar Ins. Co., 59 Wis. 2d 355, 361, 208 N.W.2d 388 (1973). [33] The fact that the safe place statute does not cover the types of active negligence that Hofflander performed eliminates the need to definitively answer that question in the context of this case. [34] [37] ¶ 100. In several cases in which we determined that the safe place statute did not apply, other, more traditional negligence was likely present. See, e.g., L. G. Arnold, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 267 Wis. 521, 66 N.W.2d 176 (1954); Deaton v. Unit Crane & Shovel Corp., 265 Wis. 349, 353, 61 N.W.2d 552 (1953). If the nature of a premises provides opportunities for a person to engage in negligent or intentional acts of self-destruction and if the party in control of that premises has a heightened duty to protect the person against that risk, then liability may result. But the liability will result from negligence under the custody and control doctrine, not negligence under the safe place statute. Cf. Deaton, 265 Wis. at 353 (The safe-place statute has no application to such acts of operation, and the issue of the crane operator's negligence should have been submitted to the jury on the basis of common-law negligence.). Therefore, Hofflander's appropriate theory of liability falls within the general common law negligence domain, which merely gets Hofflander, and this court, back to where we started. [38] ¶ 101. In sum, we hold that § 101.11 does not apply to unsafe conditions caused by an injured party's own negligence or recklessness even in the setting of a locked psychiatric ward. If a structure's alleged disrepair requires reckless or negligent conduct by the plaintiff to achieve injury to herself, then the initial disrepair may not be construed as having caused the injury. Hofflander is precluded from recovering under her safe place claim as a matter of law, since her negligencean unsafe act, not an unsafe condition caused her injury. [39] ¶ 102. Given our preceding holding, the defendants need not succeed on their affirmative defense of trespass in order to bar Hofflander's safe place claim. As a general rule, when our resolution of one issue disposes of a case, we will not address additional issues. Hull v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 222 Wis. 2d 627, 640 n.7, 586 N.W.2d 863 (1998). Nonetheless, we feel compelled to address the court of appeals' handling of this issue. [40] ¶ 103. Property owners possess a lesser duty of care to trespassers upon their property than they do to employees, guests, or frequenters of their property. See Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 58 at 397. This lesser duty merely requires owners to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct directed towards the trespasser. See Nalepinski v. Durner, 259 Wis. 583, 586, 49 N.W.2d 601 (1951); see also Wis JICivil 8025. Since Hofflander has not alleged that the defendants willfully, wantonly, or recklessly caused her injuries, a finding that she was a trespasser while she was within Room 309, or while she was in the window of that room, would absolve the defendants from liability under the safe place statute. ¶ 104. Hofflander was not an employee of the defendants. She was not a frequenter if she was a trespasser, because trespassers are expressly excluded from the definition of frequenter. See Wis. Stat. § 101.01(06). [35] As a result, if Hofflander were viewed as a trespasser while she was in Room 309, she would fall outside the two classes of people allowed recovery under the safe place statute. [41] ¶ 105. Under Wisconsin law, a trespasser is a person who enters or remains upon land in the possession of another without a privilege to do so created by the possessor's consent or otherwise. Antoniewicz v. Reszczynski, 70 Wis. 2d 836, 843, 236 N.W.2d 1 (1975) (adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 329 definition of trespasser). Saint Catherine's and Horizon argue that Hofflander did not have expressed or implied permission to enter the room of another patient or to enter the windowsill from which she exited. As a result, they maintain that she was acting as a trespasser at the time she was injured. See Grossenbach v. Devonshire Realty Co., 218 Wis. 633, 638, 261 N.W.2d 742 (1935); McNally v. Goodenough, 5 Wis. 2d 293, 300-01, 92 N.W.2d 890 (1958). ¶ 106. Hofflander responds, and the court of appeals agreed, that a person involuntarily placed in a locked psychiatric unit may never, as a matter of law, be considered a trespasser. Hofflander, 247 Wis. 2d 636, ¶¶ 27-28. The court of appeals reasoned that psychiatric wards are often host to patients who are uncooperative, unpredictable and unable to assume the ordinary duty of self-care and protection. They may be expected to enter areas that are forbidden and potentially hazardous. Id., ¶ 27. ¶ 107. We do not dispute the court's description of the general nature of psychiatric wards and the expectancies of patients' actions therein. However, we disagree that the legal effect of this characterization is to automatically eliminate Hofflander's ability to be a trespasser. The court of appeals' adoption of this brightline rule, stating that a person involuntarily committed to a psychiatric unit can never be a trespasser within that unit, is unwarranted. Such a rule conflicts with this court's pronouncement in Jankee, reaffirmed today, that mentally ill persons have a duty to exercise ordinary reasonable care in their actions. It also conflicts with the criminal law. [36] [42] ¶ 108. Wisconsin courts have previously refused to grant exceptions to the general rules of trespass based on the diminished mental capacity of the trespasser. In Monsivais v. Winzenried, 179 Wis. 2d 758, 508 N.W.2d 620 (Ct. App. 1993), the court of appeals decided that a tavern's patron was a trespasser when, while searching for a restroom, he entered through an unlocked basement door into the basement stairs of the tavern. Id. at 769. The court properly excluded from its legal calculus the fact that the injured party was severely inebriated. Id. at 762. Likewise, this court has recognized the general rule that children of tender age may be trespassers even though too young to be chargeable with contributory negligence. Baumgart v. Spierings, 2 Wis. 2d 289, 293, 86 N.W.2d 413 (1957). Although the doctrine of attractive nuisance often obviates a young child's status as trespasser, courts nonetheless recognize that they may have this status. See Nechodomu v. Lindstrom, 273 Wis. 313, 327, 77 N.W.2d 707 (1956). The only valid concern when determining a plaintiff's status as a trespasser is whether, at the time of injury, the plaintiff has entered into an area of the premises that the plaintiff lacked a right, either as an employee or frequenter, to be present. Subsumed within this decision is whether such right existed by express or implied consent to enter the area. See Reddington v. Beefeaters Tables, Inc., 72 Wis. 2d 119, 124, 240 N.W.2d 363 (1976). ¶ 109. Whether Hofflander was trespassing immediately before her injuries could not be decided as a matter of law at this time, as the parties continue to contest whether Hofflander had an implied invitation to enter the room of another patient. [37] If such an implied invitation existed, then, at least with respect to Hofflander entering Room 309, she should be treated as a frequenter, not a trespasser. Hofflander adds that, with respect to her entry into the windowsill, it is the safe place violation itself that created the means for trespass and, therefore, the hospital cannot reasonably expect to be absolved of safe place liability when the patient trespassed into the window. At best, these are genuine issues of material fact for a jury to determine, and this principle is not to be deviated from merely because the trespass occurred within a hospital's psychiatric unit. [43] ¶ 110. In sum, a person involuntarily committed to a locked psychiatric unit may be deemed a trespasser under the appropriate circumstances. The court of appeals erred in finding that, as a mater of law, Hofflander was not a trespasser when she was either in another patient's room or on the windowsill in that room. However, since we conclude that Hofflander's own negligent conduct caused her injury, rather than the preexisting condition of the air conditioner, Hofflander's safe place act claim is barred irrespective of whether Hofflander is properly deemed a trespasser.