Opinion ID: 2161524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of Safe-Place Law.

Text: The trial court determined that the safe-place law does not apply to the instant case, and we agree with this conclusion. The Babcock property was not a place of employment within sec. 101.01 (1), Stats. The statute describes such a place as one where temporarily or permanently any industry, trade or business is carried on and where any person is, directly or indirectly, employed by another for direct or indirect gain or profit. The plaintiff offered no proof as to the frequency with which Mrs. Babcock carried on rummage sales at her home. Under the reasoning of Cross v. Leuenberger (1954), 267 Wis. 232, 65 N. W. (2d) 35, 66 N. W. (2d) 168, if this were a solitary sale or even an occasional event, it would not constitute a trade or business within the meaning of sec. 101.01 (1), Stats. The Cross Case, at page 235, also establishes that the statutory definition of a place of employment requires not only the conduct of a trade or business but also the employment of one person by another. The record is devoid of a showing that any person was employed by another in connection with the rummage sale. The fact that Mrs. Babcock testified that her husband and some friends were interested in the rummage sale falls far short of showing the existence of employment.