Court Opinion

ID: 9670006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:12:27.248457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:01.731673
License: Public Domain

JON P. WILCOX, J.
¶ 24. {concurring). I agree with the majority's reasoning and holding in this case. I write separately only because I think that the majority has failed to discuss a particularly strong reason for not immunizing schools under the recreational immunity statute. Wis. Stat. § 120.12 (1999-2000)1 provides in part:
The school board of a common or union high school district shall:
(5) REPAIR OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS. Keep the school buildings and grounds in good repair, suitably equipped and in safe and sanitary condition at all times. The school board shall establish an annual building maintenance schedule.
Likewise, Wis. Stat. § 121.02(1)(i) provides that "[E]ach school board shall... [p]rovide safe and healthful facilities ..." These two statutes demonstrate the legislature's support for upholding the duty of reasonable care for schools and school districts, and they bolster our refusal to immunize the school district from liability in the present situation.
¶ 25. These statutes, which direct schools and school districts to keep their property safe and health*566ful, are in conflict with the recreational immunity statute, which would provide that the school, as a property owner, does not owe, "to any person who enters the [school's] property to engage in a recreational activity ... [a] duty to keep the property safe for recreational activities ... [a] duty to inspect the property, ... [or a] duty to give warning of an unsafe condition, use or activity on the property." Wis. Stat. § 895.52(2).
¶ 26. When statutes conflict, we must attempt to reconcile them if possible. Bingenheimer v. DHSS, 129 Wis. 2d 100, 107-08, 383 N.W.2d 898 (1986). Here, the simplest and most obvious way to reconcile these statutes is to find, as the majority does, that the legislature could not have intended to consider mandatory recess a "recreational activity" under § 895.52, see Majority op. at ¶ 2, and that the recreational immunity statute therefore does not apply.
¶ 27. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully concur.
¶ 28. I am authorized to state that Justice N. PATRICK CROOKS joins this concurrence.

 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1999-2000 version unless otherwise indicated.